This is a post from the blog of Ray Ortland. It (or at least parts of it) or circulating in various places on the web and it is really good, so I thought I'd circulate it here too. He has some excellent thoughts on the interaction between Reformed believers and other Christians and his words can easily be applied to all of us who identify with a specific theology or denomination or movement. So here it is in its entirety:
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Truly reformed
I believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian – or at least I want to be. The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians. That’s when, functionally, we relocate ourselves outside the gospel and inside Galatianism. The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.Paul answered the theological aspects of the Galatian error with solid theology. But the “whiff test” that something was wrong in those Galatian churches was more subtle than theology alone. The problem was also sociological. “They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them” (Galatians 4:17). In other words, “The legalists want to ‘disciple’ you. But really, they’re manipulating you. By emphasizing their distinctive, they want you to feel excluded so that you will conform to them.” It’s like chapter two of Tom Sawyer. Remember how Tom got the other boys to whitewash the fence for him? Mark Twain explained: “In order to make a man or boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.” Paul saw it happening in Galatia. But the gospel makes full inclusion in the church easy to attain. It re-sets everyone’s status in terms of God’s grace alone. God’s grace in Christ crucified, and nothing more. He alone makes us kosher. He himself. The Judaizers would probably have answered at this point, “We love Jesus too. But how can you be a first-rate believer, really set apart to God, without circumcision, so plainly commanded right here in the Bible? This isn’t an add-on. It’s the full-meal deal. God says so.”Their misuse of the Bible showed up in social dysfunction. “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised. . . . They desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh” (Galatians 6:12-13). In other words, “When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something’s wrong. They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them: ‘See? We’re better. We’re superior. People are moving our way. They are becoming like us. We’re the buzz.’” What is this, but deep emotional emptiness medicating itself by relational manipulation? This is not about Christ. This is about Self. Even Peter fell into this hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14). But no matter who is involved, this is not the ministry of the gospel. Even if a biblical argument can be made for a certain position, and we all want to be biblical, the proof of what’s really happening is not in the theological argumentation but in the sociological integration.Paul had thought it through. He made a decision that the bedrock of his emotional okayness would forever lie here: “Far be it from me to boast [establish my personal significance] except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:14-15). In other words, “Here is all I need for my deepest sense of myself: Jesus Christ crucified. His cross has deconstructed me and remade me, and I am happy. Everything else is at best secondary, possibly irrelevant, even counterproductive. Let Jesus alone stand forth in my theology, in my emotional well-being and in my relationships with other Christians!” This settledness in Paul’s heart made him a life-giving man for other people. He was a free man, setting others free (Galatians 5:1). This is the acid test of a truly Reformed ministry – that other believers need not be Reformed in order to be respected and included in our hearts.Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a “plus” we’re adding to the gospel. It is the Galatian impulse of self-exaltation. It can even become a club with which we bash other Christians, at least in our thoughts, to punish, to exclude and to force into line with us. What unifies the church is the gospel. What defines the gospel is the Bible. What interprets the Bible correctly is a hermeneutic centered on Jesus Christ crucified, the all-sufficient Savior of sinners, who gives himself away on terms of radical grace to all alike. What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love (Galatians 5:13).My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.
Posted by Ray Ortlund at Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Logos: Exegesis of John 1:1-5
The Logos
Context
The fourth gospel, the gospel of John, is amongst other things, a singularly unique piece of literature. Words such as “poignant,” “moving,” and even “inspired” may begin to describe it but can not fully do it justice; Hendriksen goes so far as to call it “the most amazing book ever written” (Hendriksen 3). And so it is. It is the words of the Holy Spirit, given through the recollections of the beloved apostle. It is the story of belief and unbelief, light and darkness, life and death.
That the author of this work, or at least that the authority behind it is the apostle John is almost a given amongst unbiased scholars, conservative and otherwise. A careful examination of the text reveals much about its author. For example, one may first conclude that the author was Jewish based on his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament (2:17, 10:34, 12:40), his knowledge of Jewish beliefs regarding the Messiah (1:41, 4:25, 6:15), and his familiarity with Jewish feasts and rituals such as the Passover (2:13, 6:4), the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 37), and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). The author also reveals an awareness of Palestinian topography (1:28, 2:1), particularly when it comes to Jerusalem (5:2, 9:7) and the Temple (2:14, 8:2). Such a keen awareness suggests that the author most likely lived in the area.
The reader may also surmise that the author of this work was an eyewitness to the things of which he writes when he is introduced to very detailed descriptions of the events that take place (1:29, 3:24, 6:22, 11:6) and experiences with the author an intimate knowledge of the person of Christ (4:6, 19:33-35). The identity of the author may be further narrowed down by observing that the author was not only an eyewitness, but an eyewitness to events that included only Jesus and his 12 apostles, for example, the Last Supper (13:23), and various other private meetings between Jesus and the Twelve (6:66-71).
The author never identifies who amongst the twelve he is by name, but he does do so be occasion; he is the one who reclined on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (21:24, cf. 20). By the process of elimination the reader can easily discover who this is. First, he is distinguished from Peter at the aforementioned event, and he has already been distinguished in previous chapters from Andrew (1:40), Philip (1:43-44), and Nathaniel (1:45-51). One may next eliminate Judas the Traitor who, had he even been inclined to write anything died too soon to do so. Matthew may be eliminated next as he has already written his gospel, and James the Less, Simon, Judas the Greater, and Thomas are all mentioned by name in the gospel and are more or less distinguished from the narrator of the story. This leaves two people as possible authors, the Sons of Zebedee, who incidently are never mentioned by name in the fourth gospel. This fact further substantiates that one of these two men is author since naming oneself would have been rather uncouth for the time.
Now that the question of authorship has been narrowed to James and John, a simple answer may be given. James, who was martyred by Herod prior to AD 44, was not alive to write the gospel (Acts 12:2), John was (John 21:19-24). Corroborating this is the testimony in given by the author that he was one of the earliest disciples (1:35-40); Mark provides a list of who those first disciples were, namely Andrew and Peter, who have already been eliminated, and John, who is the author (Mark 1:16-20,29) (Hendriksen 9-10).
Moreover, “within the orthodox church there is a uniform tradition regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. This tradition can be traced back from Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century to Theophilus who flourished about 170-180" (Hendriksen 24); of special note is the testimony of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself. Lending its testimony to those of the church fathers is the Muratorian Canon, which says that John wrote his gospel at the urging of his disciples (Tasker 19).
While it is well accepted that John was the author or authority behind the fourth gospel, there is some dispute as to whether or not he was the actual writer, or to use a more accurate term, penman behind the text. The Latin Vulgate at Madrid claims that it was Papias, a contemporary of John, who wrote as John dictated (Tasker 19-20). The church historian Eusebius writes of Papias who, according to Eusebius, spoke of another John, called “The Elder,” who was himself a disciple of the apostle bearing his name; it is the conclusion of Eusebius (as well as some contemporary church historians) that the “Elder” was the secretary, recording the thoughts of the apostle (Barclay 23-24). Not all commentators agree that Eusebius ever made such a bold statement, much less whether “John the Elder” even existed apart from being another title given to the apostle. Considering the weight of the evidence for apostolic authorship and the claim by the author that he himself wrote it (21:24), and the considerable lack of evidence for a separate penman, “it is safe to say that the ‘Presbyter John’ is a product of the critical and exegetical weakness of Eusebius” (Hendriksen 8).
That this book was written prior to the second century is clear. Justin Martyr, writing between 145 and 150, is clearly dependant on the theology of John’s gospel, particularly that of the prologue (Tasker 22). Pushing the date even further back is Ignatius, who very nearly quotes the apostle in his writings before dying a martyr in the year 110. Lest anyone think this is a coincidence, the discovery in Egypt and subsequent publishing in 1935 of a small codex dated between 125 and 150, containing a portion of the gospel of John, is so significant that “allowing even a minimum time for the circulation of the Gospel from its place of origin, this would throw back the date of composition so near to the traditional date in the last decade of the first century that there is no longer any reason to question the validity of the tradition” (Tasker 24).
The traditional date assigned this work by evangelicals is AD 85-90 (Laney, 1996). This is certainly possible since John was the longest lived apostle, having survived, according to Irenaeus, until the reign of Trajan in AD 98 (Tasker 20). Clement of Alexandria remarks, “Last of all John perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel” (Tasker 24-25).
Since the book could not have been written after the start of the second century, and the church fathers testify that John wrote last of all, the traditional date, with John writing at the end of his life at the urging of his friends, seems to be the most likely choice. Again, this is certainly not an agreed upon hypothesis by all evangelicals. Some would argue for an earlier date, prior to AD 70, based on evidence from John 5:2 and 18:1 (Laney, 1996).
John spent the last quarter century of his life living and ministering in Ephesus (Barclay 6) where, according to Irenaeus, he wrote his gospel (Laney, 1996). Thus it was Ephesian Christians who made up John’s first audience. This was a largely gentile church, which accounts for John feeling the need to explain Jewish customs (Hendriksen 35); indeed most converts by this time were Hellenistic (Barclay 7), and John consistently draws on imagery familiar to these people. The words of the gospel were certainly never meant to remaining Ephesus however. Together with the likes of Rome and Alexandria, Ephesus had become a major urban center for the Roman empire and was located at the intersection of major trade routes (Arnold 4). With this in mind the apostle was the first advocate of political correctness, using inclusive language that his gospel may be received by all; in short, John’s audience was first the Ephesians (by virtue of location), second believers (in need of encouragement in their faith), and finally the whole world.
John states for the reader what his purpose in writing is: “...these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). It may be safely said that there were some other contributing factors to this larger purpose as well, each of which is somewhat tied up with when one believes the book was written. In the quote by Clement of Alexandria previously given, Clement relates that John had seen that the facts of Christ’s life had already been given, and he endeavored then to write a “spiritual” gospel. One must not take this to mean that he was intending to write an allegory, but rather that he was writing with a focus on the theology, the Christology of the gospel. Indeed, while John leaves out much information given by the other gospel writers, he includes much of what they do not, and these additions all center on one fact: that Jesus is the Christ (Hendriksen 35). Much of these additional materials are concerned with Jesus’ Judean ministry, prior to the death of John the Baptizer (Hendriksen 21).
Another contributing factor to John’s purpose of belief was the Gnostic problem, those who believed, in short, that matter was evil and spirit was good, and that the true God could have nothing what-so-ever to do with evil matter. This belief went so far as to say that the God who created the world, because of his dealings with matter, must himself be evil (Barclay 12). A particular thorn in John’s side was a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. Ireneus relates a story he heard from Polycarp, who says that John, upon going into a bathe in Ephesus and finding Cerinthus inside, rushed out exclaiming, “Let us flee, lest even the bathhouse fall down because Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is within” (Hendriksen 33).
With this background in mind then, one is given a great gift. The words of the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, written by his own hand in the final days of his life, given with all earnestness in the hope that the reader may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and in believing that he may choose light over darkness and life over death.
“In a great piece of music the composer often begins by stating the themes which he is going to elaborate in the course of the work” (Barclay 42). This is what John is doing in the first five verses of his book. It is the pronouncement of the truth on which the rest of his work will stand and prepares the reader to hear and accept that truth.
That the author of this work, or at least that the authority behind it is the apostle John is almost a given amongst unbiased scholars, conservative and otherwise. A careful examination of the text reveals much about its author. For example, one may first conclude that the author was Jewish based on his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament (2:17, 10:34, 12:40), his knowledge of Jewish beliefs regarding the Messiah (1:41, 4:25, 6:15), and his familiarity with Jewish feasts and rituals such as the Passover (2:13, 6:4), the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 37), and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). The author also reveals an awareness of Palestinian topography (1:28, 2:1), particularly when it comes to Jerusalem (5:2, 9:7) and the Temple (2:14, 8:2). Such a keen awareness suggests that the author most likely lived in the area.
The reader may also surmise that the author of this work was an eyewitness to the things of which he writes when he is introduced to very detailed descriptions of the events that take place (1:29, 3:24, 6:22, 11:6) and experiences with the author an intimate knowledge of the person of Christ (4:6, 19:33-35). The identity of the author may be further narrowed down by observing that the author was not only an eyewitness, but an eyewitness to events that included only Jesus and his 12 apostles, for example, the Last Supper (13:23), and various other private meetings between Jesus and the Twelve (6:66-71).
The author never identifies who amongst the twelve he is by name, but he does do so be occasion; he is the one who reclined on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (21:24, cf. 20). By the process of elimination the reader can easily discover who this is. First, he is distinguished from Peter at the aforementioned event, and he has already been distinguished in previous chapters from Andrew (1:40), Philip (1:43-44), and Nathaniel (1:45-51). One may next eliminate Judas the Traitor who, had he even been inclined to write anything died too soon to do so. Matthew may be eliminated next as he has already written his gospel, and James the Less, Simon, Judas the Greater, and Thomas are all mentioned by name in the gospel and are more or less distinguished from the narrator of the story. This leaves two people as possible authors, the Sons of Zebedee, who incidently are never mentioned by name in the fourth gospel. This fact further substantiates that one of these two men is author since naming oneself would have been rather uncouth for the time.
Now that the question of authorship has been narrowed to James and John, a simple answer may be given. James, who was martyred by Herod prior to AD 44, was not alive to write the gospel (Acts 12:2), John was (John 21:19-24). Corroborating this is the testimony in given by the author that he was one of the earliest disciples (1:35-40); Mark provides a list of who those first disciples were, namely Andrew and Peter, who have already been eliminated, and John, who is the author (Mark 1:16-20,29) (Hendriksen 9-10).
Moreover, “within the orthodox church there is a uniform tradition regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. This tradition can be traced back from Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century to Theophilus who flourished about 170-180" (Hendriksen 24); of special note is the testimony of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself. Lending its testimony to those of the church fathers is the Muratorian Canon, which says that John wrote his gospel at the urging of his disciples (Tasker 19).
While it is well accepted that John was the author or authority behind the fourth gospel, there is some dispute as to whether or not he was the actual writer, or to use a more accurate term, penman behind the text. The Latin Vulgate at Madrid claims that it was Papias, a contemporary of John, who wrote as John dictated (Tasker 19-20). The church historian Eusebius writes of Papias who, according to Eusebius, spoke of another John, called “The Elder,” who was himself a disciple of the apostle bearing his name; it is the conclusion of Eusebius (as well as some contemporary church historians) that the “Elder” was the secretary, recording the thoughts of the apostle (Barclay 23-24). Not all commentators agree that Eusebius ever made such a bold statement, much less whether “John the Elder” even existed apart from being another title given to the apostle. Considering the weight of the evidence for apostolic authorship and the claim by the author that he himself wrote it (21:24), and the considerable lack of evidence for a separate penman, “it is safe to say that the ‘Presbyter John’ is a product of the critical and exegetical weakness of Eusebius” (Hendriksen 8).
That this book was written prior to the second century is clear. Justin Martyr, writing between 145 and 150, is clearly dependant on the theology of John’s gospel, particularly that of the prologue (Tasker 22). Pushing the date even further back is Ignatius, who very nearly quotes the apostle in his writings before dying a martyr in the year 110. Lest anyone think this is a coincidence, the discovery in Egypt and subsequent publishing in 1935 of a small codex dated between 125 and 150, containing a portion of the gospel of John, is so significant that “allowing even a minimum time for the circulation of the Gospel from its place of origin, this would throw back the date of composition so near to the traditional date in the last decade of the first century that there is no longer any reason to question the validity of the tradition” (Tasker 24).
The traditional date assigned this work by evangelicals is AD 85-90 (Laney, 1996). This is certainly possible since John was the longest lived apostle, having survived, according to Irenaeus, until the reign of Trajan in AD 98 (Tasker 20). Clement of Alexandria remarks, “Last of all John perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel” (Tasker 24-25).
Since the book could not have been written after the start of the second century, and the church fathers testify that John wrote last of all, the traditional date, with John writing at the end of his life at the urging of his friends, seems to be the most likely choice. Again, this is certainly not an agreed upon hypothesis by all evangelicals. Some would argue for an earlier date, prior to AD 70, based on evidence from John 5:2 and 18:1 (Laney, 1996).
John spent the last quarter century of his life living and ministering in Ephesus (Barclay 6) where, according to Irenaeus, he wrote his gospel (Laney, 1996). Thus it was Ephesian Christians who made up John’s first audience. This was a largely gentile church, which accounts for John feeling the need to explain Jewish customs (Hendriksen 35); indeed most converts by this time were Hellenistic (Barclay 7), and John consistently draws on imagery familiar to these people. The words of the gospel were certainly never meant to remaining Ephesus however. Together with the likes of Rome and Alexandria, Ephesus had become a major urban center for the Roman empire and was located at the intersection of major trade routes (Arnold 4). With this in mind the apostle was the first advocate of political correctness, using inclusive language that his gospel may be received by all; in short, John’s audience was first the Ephesians (by virtue of location), second believers (in need of encouragement in their faith), and finally the whole world.
John states for the reader what his purpose in writing is: “...these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). It may be safely said that there were some other contributing factors to this larger purpose as well, each of which is somewhat tied up with when one believes the book was written. In the quote by Clement of Alexandria previously given, Clement relates that John had seen that the facts of Christ’s life had already been given, and he endeavored then to write a “spiritual” gospel. One must not take this to mean that he was intending to write an allegory, but rather that he was writing with a focus on the theology, the Christology of the gospel. Indeed, while John leaves out much information given by the other gospel writers, he includes much of what they do not, and these additions all center on one fact: that Jesus is the Christ (Hendriksen 35). Much of these additional materials are concerned with Jesus’ Judean ministry, prior to the death of John the Baptizer (Hendriksen 21).
Another contributing factor to John’s purpose of belief was the Gnostic problem, those who believed, in short, that matter was evil and spirit was good, and that the true God could have nothing what-so-ever to do with evil matter. This belief went so far as to say that the God who created the world, because of his dealings with matter, must himself be evil (Barclay 12). A particular thorn in John’s side was a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. Ireneus relates a story he heard from Polycarp, who says that John, upon going into a bathe in Ephesus and finding Cerinthus inside, rushed out exclaiming, “Let us flee, lest even the bathhouse fall down because Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is within” (Hendriksen 33).
With this background in mind then, one is given a great gift. The words of the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, written by his own hand in the final days of his life, given with all earnestness in the hope that the reader may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and in believing that he may choose light over darkness and life over death.
“In a great piece of music the composer often begins by stating the themes which he is going to elaborate in the course of the work” (Barclay 42). This is what John is doing in the first five verses of his book. It is the pronouncement of the truth on which the rest of his work will stand and prepares the reader to hear and accept that truth.
Outline
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5).
I. In the Beginning (1a)
A. The Word
1. Was there in the beginning (1a)
2. Was with God (1b)
3. Was God (1c)
B. He was in the beginning with God (2)
C. Things that came into being (3)
1. Came into being through him (3a)
2. Nothing came into being apart from him (3b)
D. In him was life (4)
1. This life is the Light for all (4b)
a. Light shines in the darkness (5a)
b. The darkness can not comprehend it (5b)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5).
I. In the Beginning (1a)
A. The Word
1. Was there in the beginning (1a)
2. Was with God (1b)
3. Was God (1c)
B. He was in the beginning with God (2)
C. Things that came into being (3)
1. Came into being through him (3a)
2. Nothing came into being apart from him (3b)
D. In him was life (4)
1. This life is the Light for all (4b)
a. Light shines in the darkness (5a)
b. The darkness can not comprehend it (5b)
Exegesis
In the beginning was the Word. One immediately thinks of Genesis 1:1 when reading this passage, and the reader is able to examine it in a new light with a new layer of truth laid upon it. This Word, the logos, later revealed to be incarnate in the person of Jesus, has existed from all eternity, an eternal, uncreated being (Hendriksen 69). In trying to comprehend what or who this logos is, one must try to put himself in the mind of the Hellenist, for it was a concept they were familiar with. For the Greek, “the Logos, the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world....What is it that gives men power to think, to reason, to know?...The Logos, the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being” (Barclay 8). For the Greek there is two worlds, the unseen world, which is reality, and the seen world, which is its shadow. Jesus is a revelation from the world of reality, the mind of God in bodily form (Barclay 36).
And yet while connecting with his Greek readers, John’s use of logos is not so much rooted in Greek dualism as it is in Semitic thought; the logos expresses and reveals the mind of Yahweh (Hendriksen 70). In the Old Testament the Word is often spoken of in personal terms (Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:10-11); now it is no longer just a personal term but a relational person. “It is a mark of John’s considerable theological genius that he is able to find a term (the “Word”) that is at the same time thoroughly biblical-that is, rooted in Old Testament teaching-and highly relevant for his present audience” (Arnold 5).
And the Word was with God. This phrase suggests that the Father and the logos enjoyed the closest possible fellowship (Barclay 38). It was a fellowship so intimate and so impacful of Jesus that in all his time here on earth he longed to return to it; Christ would later give his own commentary on this in John 17 during his High Priestly Prayer (Hendriksen 71). It is a statement that is likewise impactful on the reader, for it is in this statement coupled with several others that one see the intimate relationship within the Godhead and finds the basis for true human relationship.
And the Word was God. This little phrase has been taken apart by linguists (and supposed linguists) for centuries due to the lack of the definite article before the word theos. This lack of the definite article is not alarming or even unusual. “...in Greek syntax it is common for a definite nominative predicate noun preceding the verb “einai” (to be) not to have the article (Arnold 6). John has previously made a distinction between the persons of the logos and the Father, to have used the definite article would have made these two persons identical and obliterated John’s previous statement (Barclay 38). However, it must by no means be inferred that Jesus is a lesser deity that the Father. “In order to place all the emphasis on Christ’s full deity the predicate in the original precedes the subject” (Hendriksen 71). Had John simply wanted to affirm that Jesus was divine (but not equal to God) a more proper word choice would have been “theios” (Arnold 6).
He was in the beginning with God. The logos was, as it were, face to face with God. Fully divine and existing from all eternity as a distinct person, the logos was in perfect fellowship with the Father. “Thus the full deity of Christ, his eternity, and his distinct personal existence are confessed once more, in order that heretics may be refuted and the Church may be established in the faith and love of God” (Hendriksen 71).
All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. All things, one by one, came into being by this divine Word; that Christ took part in creation is emphasized both positively, with a view to the past, and negatively, with a view to the present (Hendriksen 71). In this verse John compliments what he has already said, that Christ was not created but is in fact eternal, and then adds to that with another truth: all things were created by him. The KJV and NIV, amongst others, translates “egeneto” (came into being) as “was made.” This is a poor translation and misses much of the beauty of what John was saying, thus “came into being” or “came into existence” is much preferred (Tasker 45).
This allusion to the creative agency of the Word would have been familiar to readers from both Jewish and Greek backgrounds. In the Old Testament creation is often attributed to God’s wisdom, or Word, and the Aramaic Targum refers to the “word” of the Lord as an agent of creation (Arnold 6). In Stoic thought Logos was Reason, the rational principle governing the universe. This was not a new idea; Zeno, who lived between 336-263 B.C. said, “the General Law, which is Right Reason, pervading everything, is the same as Zeus, the Supreme Head of the government of the universe” (Arnold 6). The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo linked these tow worlds together in speaking about wisdom and the Word, identifying the Word as the instrument of creation (Arnold 6).
This verse also serves a contributing factor to John’s purpose by combating the ever spreading Gnosticism of the day. Christ was not a mere emanation of God, he was of the very same essence, and indeed had much to do with matter (Barclay 41). John is certainly not alone in testifying of this truth; Paul and the writer of Hebrews lend their voice as well (Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2).
In him was life. The great composer of this gospel is about to introduce two of his themes that he will speak on during the rest of the book: life and light. After thoroughly explaining to the reader what this life is the apostle closes his work the same way he began it, by speaking of life in John 20:31 (Barclay 42). This life that the logos provides is not simply through him, but is in fact in him. This is not a new way that God has chosen to provide life for his children, rather from all eternity and throughout the whole of the Old Covenant and to the present day life has been found in Christ, the logos (Hendriksen 71).
It has already been understood that the logos is the cause and the preserver of all life, and so in this instance the author goes deeper, beyond the physical to the spiritual (Hendriksen 71). It is the life that is the opposite of destruction (John 3:16), it is the life that Christ came to give abundantly (10:10); it is the mark of those who live with authenticity. “The man who lives a Christless life exists, but he does not know what life is” (Barclay 42).
And the life was the Light of men. Here the life is explained as Light, Light which is not comprehended by the darkness (1:5), is testified to by John, who was not the Light (1:6-9), and was rejected by the world but accepted by God’s children (1:10-13). The reader sees again the spiritual nature of this life that is to be found in the logos (Hendriksen 72). What does this Light provide for the child of God? It is the Light which brings order to chaos (Gen 1:3), reveals truth (John 3:19-20) and guides the believer (12:36). While the Jews saw Light has something given by the Mosaic Law (Psalm 19:8, Prov. 6:23) the Greeks viewed it as an eternal, universal, and personal force (Arnold 7). “One of the features of the gospel stories which no one can miss is the number of people who came running to Jesus asking: ‘What am I to do?’” For both the Jew and the Greek, “When Jesus comes into life the time of guessing and of groping is ended, the time of doubt and uncertainty and vacillation is gone. The path that was dark becomes light; the decision that was wrapped in a night of uncertainty is illumined” (Barclay 46), for Jesus is, as he claimed, the light of the world (John 8:12, 9:5).
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. The apostles language in this verse hints of Greek dualism, but much apart from this philosophy is the relationship John sees between these two powers; they are not equal forces by any means. On the contrary, Light is the clear victor (Arnold 7). The Jewish mind would immediately recall the words of the prophet Isaiah, describing a people walking in darkness who have seen a great light (Isa 9:2).
The darkness, like the Light, is personal in nature. It is actively hostile to the Light (John 1:5) and is the natural nature of those who hat good (3:19-20) as they seek to hide their deeds. It is ignorance, but not just ignorance, it is willful ignorance of the Light (8:12, 12:35). John often uses the term symbolically when Jesus is absent from a scene or when evil is being done, such as when he recalls the actions of Judas at the Last Supper (Barclay 48).
Into this darkness the Light shines; this is provided for the reader in the present tense so that he may know that not only was the light shining, but it is shining, even to this day (Hendriksen 73); and the darkness can not comprehend it. The word translated comprehend, “katalambanein,” may be understood in three ways. First, it may be taken to mean “understand.” Certainly this is true of the darkness, since the message of Christ is a message of foolishness to those who are perishing. Second, it may be understood to mean “overcome,” and this is also most certainly true of the darkness, for the road to Heaven has been clear and open to man. Finally, it may be taken to mean “extinguish,” which, while the other meanings all add to the nuance of the verse, is the most accurate translation here (Barclay 49).
John is telling the reader in this verse that “the Light has been shining and is still shining, and never has the darkness been able to obliterate it...The aorist tense of the verb implies that there has never been a single instance of such a defeat” (Tasker 45-46).
The historian Jerome records a moving story of the apostle John that took place in the city where this gospel was written, presumably around the same time period: “‘When he tarried at Ephesus to extreme old age, and could only with difficulty be carried to the church in the arms of his disciples, and was unable to giver utterance to many words, he used to say no more at their several meetings than this, ‘Little children, love one another.’ At length the disciples and fathers who were there, wearied with hearing always the same words, said, ‘Master, why dost though always say this?’ ‘It is the Lord’s command,’ was his worthy reply, ‘and if this alone be done, it is enough’” (Tasker 18).
This Son of Thunder, who once vied for a seat of honor next to Jesus in the kingdom, had been transformed by his encounter with the living Word, the Light, into a preacher of love. John is not a commentator, writing about what others have said, nor is he a historian relaying facts to his pupils; he is rather a changed man testifying of how that change took place, of how his belief progressed and developed into abundant life, and he bids us to join him in the life he has been given.
In the beginning was the Word. One immediately thinks of Genesis 1:1 when reading this passage, and the reader is able to examine it in a new light with a new layer of truth laid upon it. This Word, the logos, later revealed to be incarnate in the person of Jesus, has existed from all eternity, an eternal, uncreated being (Hendriksen 69). In trying to comprehend what or who this logos is, one must try to put himself in the mind of the Hellenist, for it was a concept they were familiar with. For the Greek, “the Logos, the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world....What is it that gives men power to think, to reason, to know?...The Logos, the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being” (Barclay 8). For the Greek there is two worlds, the unseen world, which is reality, and the seen world, which is its shadow. Jesus is a revelation from the world of reality, the mind of God in bodily form (Barclay 36).
And yet while connecting with his Greek readers, John’s use of logos is not so much rooted in Greek dualism as it is in Semitic thought; the logos expresses and reveals the mind of Yahweh (Hendriksen 70). In the Old Testament the Word is often spoken of in personal terms (Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:10-11); now it is no longer just a personal term but a relational person. “It is a mark of John’s considerable theological genius that he is able to find a term (the “Word”) that is at the same time thoroughly biblical-that is, rooted in Old Testament teaching-and highly relevant for his present audience” (Arnold 5).
And the Word was with God. This phrase suggests that the Father and the logos enjoyed the closest possible fellowship (Barclay 38). It was a fellowship so intimate and so impacful of Jesus that in all his time here on earth he longed to return to it; Christ would later give his own commentary on this in John 17 during his High Priestly Prayer (Hendriksen 71). It is a statement that is likewise impactful on the reader, for it is in this statement coupled with several others that one see the intimate relationship within the Godhead and finds the basis for true human relationship.
And the Word was God. This little phrase has been taken apart by linguists (and supposed linguists) for centuries due to the lack of the definite article before the word theos. This lack of the definite article is not alarming or even unusual. “...in Greek syntax it is common for a definite nominative predicate noun preceding the verb “einai” (to be) not to have the article (Arnold 6). John has previously made a distinction between the persons of the logos and the Father, to have used the definite article would have made these two persons identical and obliterated John’s previous statement (Barclay 38). However, it must by no means be inferred that Jesus is a lesser deity that the Father. “In order to place all the emphasis on Christ’s full deity the predicate in the original precedes the subject” (Hendriksen 71). Had John simply wanted to affirm that Jesus was divine (but not equal to God) a more proper word choice would have been “theios” (Arnold 6).
He was in the beginning with God. The logos was, as it were, face to face with God. Fully divine and existing from all eternity as a distinct person, the logos was in perfect fellowship with the Father. “Thus the full deity of Christ, his eternity, and his distinct personal existence are confessed once more, in order that heretics may be refuted and the Church may be established in the faith and love of God” (Hendriksen 71).
All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. All things, one by one, came into being by this divine Word; that Christ took part in creation is emphasized both positively, with a view to the past, and negatively, with a view to the present (Hendriksen 71). In this verse John compliments what he has already said, that Christ was not created but is in fact eternal, and then adds to that with another truth: all things were created by him. The KJV and NIV, amongst others, translates “egeneto” (came into being) as “was made.” This is a poor translation and misses much of the beauty of what John was saying, thus “came into being” or “came into existence” is much preferred (Tasker 45).
This allusion to the creative agency of the Word would have been familiar to readers from both Jewish and Greek backgrounds. In the Old Testament creation is often attributed to God’s wisdom, or Word, and the Aramaic Targum refers to the “word” of the Lord as an agent of creation (Arnold 6). In Stoic thought Logos was Reason, the rational principle governing the universe. This was not a new idea; Zeno, who lived between 336-263 B.C. said, “the General Law, which is Right Reason, pervading everything, is the same as Zeus, the Supreme Head of the government of the universe” (Arnold 6). The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo linked these tow worlds together in speaking about wisdom and the Word, identifying the Word as the instrument of creation (Arnold 6).
This verse also serves a contributing factor to John’s purpose by combating the ever spreading Gnosticism of the day. Christ was not a mere emanation of God, he was of the very same essence, and indeed had much to do with matter (Barclay 41). John is certainly not alone in testifying of this truth; Paul and the writer of Hebrews lend their voice as well (Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2).
In him was life. The great composer of this gospel is about to introduce two of his themes that he will speak on during the rest of the book: life and light. After thoroughly explaining to the reader what this life is the apostle closes his work the same way he began it, by speaking of life in John 20:31 (Barclay 42). This life that the logos provides is not simply through him, but is in fact in him. This is not a new way that God has chosen to provide life for his children, rather from all eternity and throughout the whole of the Old Covenant and to the present day life has been found in Christ, the logos (Hendriksen 71).
It has already been understood that the logos is the cause and the preserver of all life, and so in this instance the author goes deeper, beyond the physical to the spiritual (Hendriksen 71). It is the life that is the opposite of destruction (John 3:16), it is the life that Christ came to give abundantly (10:10); it is the mark of those who live with authenticity. “The man who lives a Christless life exists, but he does not know what life is” (Barclay 42).
And the life was the Light of men. Here the life is explained as Light, Light which is not comprehended by the darkness (1:5), is testified to by John, who was not the Light (1:6-9), and was rejected by the world but accepted by God’s children (1:10-13). The reader sees again the spiritual nature of this life that is to be found in the logos (Hendriksen 72). What does this Light provide for the child of God? It is the Light which brings order to chaos (Gen 1:3), reveals truth (John 3:19-20) and guides the believer (12:36). While the Jews saw Light has something given by the Mosaic Law (Psalm 19:8, Prov. 6:23) the Greeks viewed it as an eternal, universal, and personal force (Arnold 7). “One of the features of the gospel stories which no one can miss is the number of people who came running to Jesus asking: ‘What am I to do?’” For both the Jew and the Greek, “When Jesus comes into life the time of guessing and of groping is ended, the time of doubt and uncertainty and vacillation is gone. The path that was dark becomes light; the decision that was wrapped in a night of uncertainty is illumined” (Barclay 46), for Jesus is, as he claimed, the light of the world (John 8:12, 9:5).
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. The apostles language in this verse hints of Greek dualism, but much apart from this philosophy is the relationship John sees between these two powers; they are not equal forces by any means. On the contrary, Light is the clear victor (Arnold 7). The Jewish mind would immediately recall the words of the prophet Isaiah, describing a people walking in darkness who have seen a great light (Isa 9:2).
The darkness, like the Light, is personal in nature. It is actively hostile to the Light (John 1:5) and is the natural nature of those who hat good (3:19-20) as they seek to hide their deeds. It is ignorance, but not just ignorance, it is willful ignorance of the Light (8:12, 12:35). John often uses the term symbolically when Jesus is absent from a scene or when evil is being done, such as when he recalls the actions of Judas at the Last Supper (Barclay 48).
Into this darkness the Light shines; this is provided for the reader in the present tense so that he may know that not only was the light shining, but it is shining, even to this day (Hendriksen 73); and the darkness can not comprehend it. The word translated comprehend, “katalambanein,” may be understood in three ways. First, it may be taken to mean “understand.” Certainly this is true of the darkness, since the message of Christ is a message of foolishness to those who are perishing. Second, it may be understood to mean “overcome,” and this is also most certainly true of the darkness, for the road to Heaven has been clear and open to man. Finally, it may be taken to mean “extinguish,” which, while the other meanings all add to the nuance of the verse, is the most accurate translation here (Barclay 49).
John is telling the reader in this verse that “the Light has been shining and is still shining, and never has the darkness been able to obliterate it...The aorist tense of the verb implies that there has never been a single instance of such a defeat” (Tasker 45-46).
The historian Jerome records a moving story of the apostle John that took place in the city where this gospel was written, presumably around the same time period: “‘When he tarried at Ephesus to extreme old age, and could only with difficulty be carried to the church in the arms of his disciples, and was unable to giver utterance to many words, he used to say no more at their several meetings than this, ‘Little children, love one another.’ At length the disciples and fathers who were there, wearied with hearing always the same words, said, ‘Master, why dost though always say this?’ ‘It is the Lord’s command,’ was his worthy reply, ‘and if this alone be done, it is enough’” (Tasker 18).
This Son of Thunder, who once vied for a seat of honor next to Jesus in the kingdom, had been transformed by his encounter with the living Word, the Light, into a preacher of love. John is not a commentator, writing about what others have said, nor is he a historian relaying facts to his pupils; he is rather a changed man testifying of how that change took place, of how his belief progressed and developed into abundant life, and he bids us to join him in the life he has been given.
Application
John 1:1-5 is most certainly a passage written more for theological reasons than for pragmatic considerations. However, the tow realms are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, a good theology is the basis of right living, and the lack thereof is the reason that for many American believers, in the words of A.W. Tozer, God has become an inference rather than a reality. First, a look again at the passage:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5).
The first application that may be drawn from this passage regards the character and nature of God. John says that the Word, that is, Christ, has existed form eternity, he is and always has been God; while there is a difference in God’s manner of dealing with people in the New Covenant as opposed to the Old, there is no demarcation in God’s nature, attitude, or love. In other words, God was always like Jesus. Jesus has provided a new window into the unchanging and eternal love God has for the people he created. Likewise God’s wrath, his detest of sin and all that defiles, his standard of perfection for entrance into the kingdom, is all a part of the person of Christ.
Knowing that God has an incomprehensible love for the sinner and at the same time an detest for sin that one can not pacify is significant for the believer in that he can not fully grasp the depth of one without an understanding of the other. A proper understanding of love and wrath, exhibited by the same God, prevents the believer from living under “cheap grace” spoken of by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in The Cost of Discipleship: “Let the Christian rest content with his worldliness and with this renunciation of any higher standard than the world. He is living for the sake of the world rather than for the sake of grace. Let him be comforted and rest assured in his possession of this grace ‑ for grace alone does everything. Instead of following Christ, let the Christian enjoy the consolations of his grace!
That is what we mean by cheap grace, the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sins departs.” Costly grace, a grace that has value and transforms lives, comes from knowing that the God whom the sinner has offended is also the God who reaches out to him, who has always been reaching out to him with a love that endures forever. “Costly grace is the Incarnation of God” (Bonhoeffer 99).
The second application principle which may be drawn from this passage revolves around the meaning of life itself. Many an individual, philosophers, scholars, and theologians, have endeavored to discover and expound upon the meaning of life. All this has proven to be fodder for the satirists; for example, Monty Python discovered that the meaning of life was “seven.”
The Bible makes the meaning of life clear and simple, so much so that some people can not accept it in its simplicity. John says that in Jesus is life, and therein lies its meaning: that the believer may participate fully in the life of God. This is the mark of the authentic life, a life lived not so much according to what God says or even for God (for this does not go far enough), but a life lived in God.
For the believer this means staying in tune to what the Holy Spirit is saying to him and staying receptive to what the image of God inside of him, now rekindled by Christ, is longing for. It is a rejection of empty asceticism and useless guilt which is replaced by the joy and awe of costly grace in the path toward sanctified authenticity.
A final application principle (or at least the last one expounded upon here) is found in John’s statement that “The Light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it” (1:5, NLT). Let it never be said, no matter had bad it gets, that the church is in danger of dying out, for this is never the case. Jesus is the Light that continually shines, and though the darkness most certainly makes its presence known, it has never and can never prevail, it has never and can never extinguish the Light of Christ.
There was for a time (and perhaps still) a television show called “Early Edition” in which a man, for a reason unknown to both him and the audience, received a copy of the newspaper a full day early. In this newspaper, which essentially was a prophecy of things to come the following day, the man was able to read about horrible event s that would take place. Because he knew what was going to happen he was able to act with confidence to prevent the reported tragedies from becoming a reality. Believers are privy to an “early edition” of sorts in that they know ahead of time who the winner is. Moreover, they know that no matter how acutely the darkness is felt, it has never nor will it ever gain any real or sustained victory against the Light. Believer then may act in confidence in their daily lives, assured that their faith is not in vain, that the victor Christ is willing to share the spoils of victory with them.
The life the Christian is called to live is a life of authenticity, a live lived in the God who’s love endures forever. It is the pursuit of what it means to be fully human, to fully know God not by inference but by experience, a pursuit undertaken with confidence because victory is assured.
Bibliography
Arnold, Clinton (Ed.). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts. Zondervan, New York: 2002
Barclay, William. The Daily Bible Study Series: The Gospel of John, Volume 1, Revised Edition. Westminster Press, Philadelphia: 1975
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of John. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: 1953
Laney, Carl. BLS502 Class Notes. Western Seminary, Portland, OR: 1996
Tasker, R.V.G. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids: 1960 (Reprint: 1981)
John 1:1-5 is most certainly a passage written more for theological reasons than for pragmatic considerations. However, the tow realms are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, a good theology is the basis of right living, and the lack thereof is the reason that for many American believers, in the words of A.W. Tozer, God has become an inference rather than a reality. First, a look again at the passage:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5).
The first application that may be drawn from this passage regards the character and nature of God. John says that the Word, that is, Christ, has existed form eternity, he is and always has been God; while there is a difference in God’s manner of dealing with people in the New Covenant as opposed to the Old, there is no demarcation in God’s nature, attitude, or love. In other words, God was always like Jesus. Jesus has provided a new window into the unchanging and eternal love God has for the people he created. Likewise God’s wrath, his detest of sin and all that defiles, his standard of perfection for entrance into the kingdom, is all a part of the person of Christ.
Knowing that God has an incomprehensible love for the sinner and at the same time an detest for sin that one can not pacify is significant for the believer in that he can not fully grasp the depth of one without an understanding of the other. A proper understanding of love and wrath, exhibited by the same God, prevents the believer from living under “cheap grace” spoken of by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in The Cost of Discipleship: “Let the Christian rest content with his worldliness and with this renunciation of any higher standard than the world. He is living for the sake of the world rather than for the sake of grace. Let him be comforted and rest assured in his possession of this grace ‑ for grace alone does everything. Instead of following Christ, let the Christian enjoy the consolations of his grace!
That is what we mean by cheap grace, the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sins departs.” Costly grace, a grace that has value and transforms lives, comes from knowing that the God whom the sinner has offended is also the God who reaches out to him, who has always been reaching out to him with a love that endures forever. “Costly grace is the Incarnation of God” (Bonhoeffer 99).
The second application principle which may be drawn from this passage revolves around the meaning of life itself. Many an individual, philosophers, scholars, and theologians, have endeavored to discover and expound upon the meaning of life. All this has proven to be fodder for the satirists; for example, Monty Python discovered that the meaning of life was “seven.”
The Bible makes the meaning of life clear and simple, so much so that some people can not accept it in its simplicity. John says that in Jesus is life, and therein lies its meaning: that the believer may participate fully in the life of God. This is the mark of the authentic life, a life lived not so much according to what God says or even for God (for this does not go far enough), but a life lived in God.
For the believer this means staying in tune to what the Holy Spirit is saying to him and staying receptive to what the image of God inside of him, now rekindled by Christ, is longing for. It is a rejection of empty asceticism and useless guilt which is replaced by the joy and awe of costly grace in the path toward sanctified authenticity.
A final application principle (or at least the last one expounded upon here) is found in John’s statement that “The Light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it” (1:5, NLT). Let it never be said, no matter had bad it gets, that the church is in danger of dying out, for this is never the case. Jesus is the Light that continually shines, and though the darkness most certainly makes its presence known, it has never and can never prevail, it has never and can never extinguish the Light of Christ.
There was for a time (and perhaps still) a television show called “Early Edition” in which a man, for a reason unknown to both him and the audience, received a copy of the newspaper a full day early. In this newspaper, which essentially was a prophecy of things to come the following day, the man was able to read about horrible event s that would take place. Because he knew what was going to happen he was able to act with confidence to prevent the reported tragedies from becoming a reality. Believers are privy to an “early edition” of sorts in that they know ahead of time who the winner is. Moreover, they know that no matter how acutely the darkness is felt, it has never nor will it ever gain any real or sustained victory against the Light. Believer then may act in confidence in their daily lives, assured that their faith is not in vain, that the victor Christ is willing to share the spoils of victory with them.
The life the Christian is called to live is a life of authenticity, a live lived in the God who’s love endures forever. It is the pursuit of what it means to be fully human, to fully know God not by inference but by experience, a pursuit undertaken with confidence because victory is assured.
Bibliography
Arnold, Clinton (Ed.). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts. Zondervan, New York: 2002
Barclay, William. The Daily Bible Study Series: The Gospel of John, Volume 1, Revised Edition. Westminster Press, Philadelphia: 1975
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of John. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: 1953
Laney, Carl. BLS502 Class Notes. Western Seminary, Portland, OR: 1996
Tasker, R.V.G. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids: 1960 (Reprint: 1981)
Friday, January 4, 2008
A Minigesis of Romans 12:1-2
INTRODUCTION
In 1813 King Frederick William III of Prussia instituted what would become one of the most prestigious military awards a soldier could receive: the Iron Cross. There is a story, perhaps not historically accurate but illustrative nonetheless, that the first recipients of the Iron Cross were not soldiers, but the patriotic women of Prussia. The financing of war and country and proven too big a burden for the nation’s treasury, so the king called upon the ladies of the land to donate their jewelry of gold and silver, which would then be melted down and used to serve the greater good of the country. In return for their patriotic actions the women would be given an iron cross. King and country had served the citizens well, and in light of this Prussia’s women responded in droves, gladly giving up their gold for iron. In fact, fancy jewelry became unfashionable; iron crosses, however, were highly prized.
The call of Christ to his people is not unlike this. Christ the King has given much and cared well for his people, and so He asks his people to turn in their “jewelry,” these ornaments and trinkets of life which human nature and especially American culture highly prizes and receive in its place a gift from the king. To some it doesn’t look like much (an iron cross does not glitter like a gold ring), but for those who know what has been given for them and to whom they are giving, it is highly prized.
Paul, as one sent by Christ the king, brings this message to the believers in Romans 12:1, saying “I beseech you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, well-pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service of worship.” Just as the women of Prussia had renewed priorities after trading their gold for iron, so too the believer is to have transformed priorities after having presented themselves, as Paul says in the next verse, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well-pleasing and perfect.” What is so amazing about this passage, beyond the exhortation itself (which is indeed amazing and powerful) is that the power to carry this out, the power to sacrifice what the world has given and received what God has given and so be transformed, is couched in the exhortation itself. To see it though it is important that the reader understand the context.
That this letter was written by Paul is not really up for debate; as proving this is not the point of this paper, it will suffice for now to say that the evidence in favor of Pauline authorship is “overwhelming” (Hendriksen 25). The letter was, as the name implies, written to the church in Rome, which had not been founded by an apostle (Catholic claims not withstanding) and consisted of both Jewish and Gentile believers. These were not easy times for Christians. The believers were unpopular, accused of such things as cannibalism and incest; Tacitus makes reference to Christians in his Annals as “enemies of the human race” (Bruce 19). Besides being assailed from the front by enemies of the church, they are being attacked on the sides by the influences of the world; the inherent tension of integrating two worldviews (Jew and Gentile) into one (Christian) did not make church life any easier. With all the challenges facing the Roman Christians the church was at a pivotal point (Faber 2001).
Paul, too, had reached a pivotal point in his ministry. Dating the letter to AD 57 (Arnold 3), Paul had reached the end of his third missionary journey. “From Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum,” Paul tells his readers, “I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (15:19). In his time he has gained knowledge, wisdom, and experience, as well as an unbridled passion for those who would believe, both Jew and Gentile. He, as a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and the “chief of sinners” understands better than most the mercies of God, and Paul, better than most, lived a life demonstrating what it truly means to believe and respond to those mercies; it is this knowledge and passion that Paul tires to communicate to the Roman Christians.
OUTLINE
Paul’s thesis for this letter is that the gospel “is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. For in it God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith” (1:16-17). The first 11 chapters of the book are Paul’s treatise on orthodoxy, an examination of this gospel. The final chapters relate his view of orthopraxy, an explanation of how the righteous will live by faith.
Paul first makes a declaration of guilt, for the Gentiles (ch 1), the Jews (ch 2), and finally the whole world (ch 3). Justification, illustrated by Abraham and explained in Adam take up Romans 3:21-5:21, followed by sanctification in the flesh (ch 6), in the law (ch 7) and by the Spirit (ch 8). Paul then speaks to the scope of God’s redemption (9-11) before finally coming to the second part of his epistle in Romans 12, the fruit of redemption which is service and transformation. Specifically, Romans 12:1-2 looks like this:
Brothers:
I. An exhortation to holy living (12:1-2)
A. Present your bodies as a sacrifice (1)
1. A living sacrifice
2. A holy sacrifice
3. A well pleasing sacrifice
B. Do this because of God’s mercies to you
C. Do this as your act of worship
1. It is a reasonable response
II. A command (2)
A. Stop conforming to this world
B. Keep being transformed
1. By the renewing of your mind
2. So that you can prove the will of God
a. His will is good
b. His will is well-pleasing
c. His will is perfect
Paul finishes his letter by talking about the Christian’s duties in life (12-13),
Christian liberty (14), and final conclusion and salutations (15-16).
EXEGESIS
“Therefore I beseech you, brothers, by the mercies of God”
A famous axiom of Bible study is that whenever the reader encounters a “therefore” he must ask himself what it is there for. In this case, it refers the reader back to the aforementioned mercies in the previous chapters (Phillips 181). These mercies include God’s kindness (2:4), grace (4:16), love (5:5), patience (9:22), and chiefly the message of the gospel itself, namely justification by faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ (3:24-25).
Paul is directly addressing the believers and uses the word parakalw, which can be translated as exhort, beseech, or urge. It is stronger than asking, but it is not a command; God does not compel those whom he loves to respond, and yet, as will be shown later, there is little else to do but respond in love and obedience when considering the mercies of God. “God has saved us from sin, from its penalty and its power. He has saved us from self in all its features and all its forms. He has overruled the destinies of nations. He has triumphed in his grace and multiplied His mercies. He has, as it were, besieged us with His mercies, brought them up against us in countless number, built the bulwarks of His grace against our souls, poured a ceaseless cannonade of kindness in upon the breaches of our hearts” (Philips 181). It is because of these reasons that Paul is driven to beseech and exhort the believers; to “urge” is not the best translation as it does not carry the strength in English to fit the context.
“to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, well-pleasing to God”
The original recipients of this letter, being either Jewish or acquainted with Jewish practice, would have noted the contrasts between the sacrifice Paul is calling for and the ones they have witnessed or heard about in Jerusalem. First, it is not an animal that is being presented, but the body of the very believer himself. This is at once a harder sacrifice to make, for one is being asked to give up something he dearly loves, for “no one ever hated his own body” (Eph 5:29). It becomes further differentiated from and more difficult than Old Testament sacrifices with the word zwsan, which is translated as “living.” The form of the word (not to mention context) is present and active. Simply put this is a sacrifice that is continual and never dies; one cannot lay it on the alter and be done with it, but rather he must lay himself on the alter again and again and again.
It is not too much of an inference to say that when Paul refers to the sacrifice of the body he means more than flesh and blood. In 13:14 the apostle says to “make no put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no plans to satisfy the fleshly desires.” Perhaps the best picture of the depth and breadth of this sacrifice in 6:11-14, telling his readers, “you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its desires. And do not offer any parts of it to sin as weapons for unrighteousness. But as those who are alive from the dead, offer yourselves to God, and all the parts of yourselves to God as weapons for righteousness. For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace.”
Such a sacrifice, which includes a death to sin and a life lived for Christ, is both holy and euarestion, which can be translated either as acceptable or well-pleasing. “Well-pleasing” is the better choice as for the English reader what is acceptable in his or her life is not necessarily well-pleasing, yet for God this is not the case.
“which is your reasonable service of worship.”
The Greek logikhn, which is here translated as “reasonable,” also carries the meaning of “spiritual;” indeed in the only other place it is used in the New Testament it is translated thus, as Peter makes reference to “spiritual milk” (1 Peter 2:2). In the context of 1 Peter the best translation is obvious-the context of the verse doesn’t allow for the English word “reasonable.” The best translation for logikhn here in Romans must likewise submit to context. “The emphasis of 12:1 is on the word ‘Therefore’” (Hendriksen 402), which, as mentioned, refers the reader back to the mercies of God. In light of these mercies, the apostle says, it is only reasonable and rational that the believer should present his whole body to God.
Paul calls this the believer’s latrein, that is, he calls it the believer’s service or divine worship. There are several Greek words for worship, and while each emphasize a slightly different form of worship, each also shares the similarity of “humble service and a total life submitted to God, honoring him with what he values—this is the essence of true worship” (Christian Standard). latrew is the most service oriented of the words, for example true believers “serve (λατρευοντες) by the Spirit of God” (Phil 3:3). All of life is (or should be) an act of worship before God (Arnold 74), and much of American worship, be it traditional, contemporary or blended, is foreign to the Bible.
“And do not be conformed to this world”
“It is one thing to point out a goal to a person and encourage him to try to reach it. Paul has done this in verse 1. It is a different matter to show him what he should do to reach that goal. The apostle does not fail us at this point” (Hendriksen 404). The conjunction kai, translated “and,” links these two thoughts together. The idea of presenting one’s body as a living sacrifice, and the command not to conform but to transform go hand in hand and both are a response to the mercies of God.
Paul chooses to use the word mh, a strong negative, telling his readers to NOT be conformed to the world. Moreover, the word conformed, suschmatizesqe, is in the imperative mood, or mood of command. In other words, Paul is not making a suggestion, nor is he even beseeching as in verse one, but rather he is commanding. What makes this command particularly interesting is that it is in the middle voice (the passive voice is a possibility, but context suggests the middle voice as a better option). The middle voice implies that the readers were not actively conforming, but neither were they actively avoiding. The best translation of this verse would read: “stop allowing yourself to be conformed.” J.B. Phillips puts it this way: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold” (Philips 182). Paul also offers a commentary on himself: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals’” (1 Cor 15:33).
The apostle does not use the simple kosmos, or world, here, but instead says tw aiwni toutw, “to this age.” The culture surrounding the Romans bore striking similarities to today’s American culture in its corruption and immorality (Faber 2001), which can and does subtly makes its way into the church and the lives of those called out for Christ. Not only does yielding to the temptations of the world conflict with the desires of the Spirit and the purpose of the church, it only leads to disappointment and death, for “the fashion of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31).
“but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”
Here the apostle presents a strong contrast: Don’t be conformed, be transformed. The same Greek verb translates as transformed is used also in Matt 17:2 at the transfiguration of Christ, and the transfigured Christ stands in sharp contrast to fallen human nature. Here again is another command, the command to be transformed, and Christians from AD 57 until present day have worked hard to follow this command, finding on one extreme the ascetics, whipping themselves into a renewed mind and on the other end mega-preachers touting the psychological path to “Your Best Life Now.” Both, however, miss what Paul is saying. The verb metamorfusqe (transformed), is first in the present tense, meaning this transformation of which Paul speaks is continual. Second, it is in the passive voice, meaning that the reader, the one being transformed, cannot (nor should he) do this himself. Finally, it is in the imperative mood, the mood of command. The best translation would be “continue to let yourselves be transformed.”
Implied in this command is the amazing power for transformation mentioned earlier, namely, the Holy Spirit. Paul explains, “So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image” (2 Cor 3:18). The duty of the Christian is to allow the Spirit to change him, for God will not force change on him, and in allowing the Spirit to work in his life the believer will fulfill the command to stop allowing himself to be conformed.
Paul presents the renewing of the mind as the means by which the transformation takes place (Lenski 515), but to leave it at that is not satisfactory because the rest of scripture rejects intellectual faith as being of much value in and of itself, so it stands to reason that Paul means something more, and indeed while the renewal of the mind begins with right thinking it does not end there. In 7:22-25 Paul relates the mind to the inner man, which “is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor 4:16). How is it being renewed? “through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
“that you may prove what the will of God is”
Here is the reason for the command: that the believer may prove (in themselves) what the will of God is. dokimazein, which can be translated as prove or approve, is in the present, active form, which again stresses an action happening in present time and continuing to happen. This statement of the apostle’s shows that “in order to discern the will of God for their lives the believers cannot just depend on conscience. Conscience is indeed very important, but it must constantly be sent back to the school of Scripture to receive instruction from the Holy Spirit. It is in this manner that the believers become and remain aware of God’s will” (Hendriksen 406). Whole tomes are written on finding the will of God for one’s life, but Paul sums it up in a verse: stop being conformed to the world and allow yourself to be transformed by the Spirit. Then you will know the will of God.
“that which is good and well-pleasing and perfect.”
Just to make it a little easier, Paul tells the reader what the will of God is: that which is good and well-pleasing, and perfect. The word translated as “perfect,” teleion, may also be rendered “complete” or “mature,” all of which would do well here, each implying the other to be true. The goal of a life lived in accordance with God’s will is not salvation, for that has been freely given, but rather it is perfection, as Jesus himself commanded: “you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48). That this will happen in this lifetime is not likely, that this will happen in the next is a beautiful assurance. “Dear friends, we are already God’s children, but he has not yet shown us what we will be like when Christ appears. But we do know that we will be like him, for we will see him as he really is” (1 John 3:2).
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES
1. The believer is to respond to the mercies God has shown him. “The Christian life does not mean to stand still, but to move from that which is good to that which is better” (Luther 167). To put it another way, “Jesus loves you just the way you are, but he refuses to leave you that way” (Lucado 15). Much of the focus of the church is on getting people through the door, getting the commitment, and then unfortunately many new believers are then left hanging without discipleship. This is part of the reason for the prevalence of the vending machine god, the god that gives but never asks for anything in return. This is not the God of scripture; while God never asks His people to repay Him (for they never could) He demands that they respond to Him; doing so is the reasonable and rationale thing to do.
2. The believer is to respond with his whole person. Another unfortunate plague of American Christianity cheap grace, which is made possible when one gives only their intellectual consent, agreeing that Christ is who He says He is. As James says, even demons believe that. God asks for the whole person: body, mind, and soul; to submit anything less is to not submit.
3. If the believer does not maintain his guard, he will be just like the world. The Bible says that Christians are sojourners in this world, visitors waiting to go home. It is easy and convenient to adopt the ways of the culture in which one finds themselves, and in fact human nature is to imitate that which is constantly in his presence. Therefore, the believer should see to it that it is Jesus who is constantly in his presence. It is not enough to declare oneself different, one must actively be different.
4. The Spirit does the work if the believer lets him. It is not often that one can say that God is capitulating to the will of man, but in this case it is true. God is ready, willing, anxious, and able to wrought change in the life of His people, and indeed He is the only one who can do it, but He will not do it until the believer is open to it.
5. The will of God is knowable. It is both a grievous sin and intellectual and spiritual laziness when Agnostics say that the will of God is unknowable, and a tragedy when Christians say it. But like the idea of grace freely given, a knowable will of God (and thus a knowable God) is a concept that is hard to accept. But Christians can know the will of God and have peace in pursuing their ambitions when they are open to the transformative work of the Spirit.
APPLICATION
“I went into church and sat on the velvet pew. I watched as the sun came shining through the stained glass windows. The minister dressed in a velvet robe opened the golden gilded Bible, marked it with a silk bookmark and said, "If any man will be my disciple, said Jesus, let him deny himself, take up his cross, sell what he has, give it to the poor, and follow me” (Kierkegaard 90). The irony of Kierkegaard’s observation in unmistakable, so too is the sadness. Orthodoxy is useless if not accompanied by right practice, which is probably why the scriptures don’t teach doctrine just for fun. Rather, doctrine is always taught with a mind towards application.
The passage examined above is a command to transform. On it’s face it seems so hard to do; after all, if it were easy everyone would be perfect and mature, and yet no one reaches that goal until they see Jesus. But in fact the command given does not put the burden on the believer but on God-it is He who transforms. What the believer is asked to do, in the end, is simply believe.
In his book Blue Like Jazz Donald Miller relates a statement made by his friend Andrew the Protester, who says “You don’t believe what you say you believe.. you believe what you do.” Christians, especially the good, church-going Christians, speak often about the Holy Spirit and regeneration and transformation and changed hearts, all while warning themselves and their young about the dangers of the world, with its liberal media and sex-saturated ways, and yet very few things change. This is because words don’t equal belief and intellectual consent does not equal faith. There are several applications of this passage, but the most important is this: The believer must open his heart to the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and then live as one transformed. Live it, and it will be so.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faber, Charles. Class Notes: Romans. Boise Bible College. Boise, ID: 2001
Arnold, Clinton. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids: 2002
Bruce, F.F. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Romans. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans:
1985
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Romans. Grand Rapids, Baker
Books: 1980
Kierkegaard, Soren. The Essential Kierkegaard. (Edited by: Howard and Edna Hong).
Princeton University Press: 2000
Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1945
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Romans. (Translated by J.T. Mueller). Grand Rapids:
Kregal Publications, 1976 (reprint)
Lucado, Max. Just Like Jesus. Thomas Nelson Pub, 1998
Philips, John. Exploring Romans. Moody Press, Chicago: 1969
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=24 Accessed November 28, 2007
In 1813 King Frederick William III of Prussia instituted what would become one of the most prestigious military awards a soldier could receive: the Iron Cross. There is a story, perhaps not historically accurate but illustrative nonetheless, that the first recipients of the Iron Cross were not soldiers, but the patriotic women of Prussia. The financing of war and country and proven too big a burden for the nation’s treasury, so the king called upon the ladies of the land to donate their jewelry of gold and silver, which would then be melted down and used to serve the greater good of the country. In return for their patriotic actions the women would be given an iron cross. King and country had served the citizens well, and in light of this Prussia’s women responded in droves, gladly giving up their gold for iron. In fact, fancy jewelry became unfashionable; iron crosses, however, were highly prized.
The call of Christ to his people is not unlike this. Christ the King has given much and cared well for his people, and so He asks his people to turn in their “jewelry,” these ornaments and trinkets of life which human nature and especially American culture highly prizes and receive in its place a gift from the king. To some it doesn’t look like much (an iron cross does not glitter like a gold ring), but for those who know what has been given for them and to whom they are giving, it is highly prized.
Paul, as one sent by Christ the king, brings this message to the believers in Romans 12:1, saying “I beseech you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, well-pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service of worship.” Just as the women of Prussia had renewed priorities after trading their gold for iron, so too the believer is to have transformed priorities after having presented themselves, as Paul says in the next verse, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well-pleasing and perfect.” What is so amazing about this passage, beyond the exhortation itself (which is indeed amazing and powerful) is that the power to carry this out, the power to sacrifice what the world has given and received what God has given and so be transformed, is couched in the exhortation itself. To see it though it is important that the reader understand the context.
That this letter was written by Paul is not really up for debate; as proving this is not the point of this paper, it will suffice for now to say that the evidence in favor of Pauline authorship is “overwhelming” (Hendriksen 25). The letter was, as the name implies, written to the church in Rome, which had not been founded by an apostle (Catholic claims not withstanding) and consisted of both Jewish and Gentile believers. These were not easy times for Christians. The believers were unpopular, accused of such things as cannibalism and incest; Tacitus makes reference to Christians in his Annals as “enemies of the human race” (Bruce 19). Besides being assailed from the front by enemies of the church, they are being attacked on the sides by the influences of the world; the inherent tension of integrating two worldviews (Jew and Gentile) into one (Christian) did not make church life any easier. With all the challenges facing the Roman Christians the church was at a pivotal point (Faber 2001).
Paul, too, had reached a pivotal point in his ministry. Dating the letter to AD 57 (Arnold 3), Paul had reached the end of his third missionary journey. “From Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum,” Paul tells his readers, “I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (15:19). In his time he has gained knowledge, wisdom, and experience, as well as an unbridled passion for those who would believe, both Jew and Gentile. He, as a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and the “chief of sinners” understands better than most the mercies of God, and Paul, better than most, lived a life demonstrating what it truly means to believe and respond to those mercies; it is this knowledge and passion that Paul tires to communicate to the Roman Christians.
OUTLINE
Paul’s thesis for this letter is that the gospel “is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. For in it God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith” (1:16-17). The first 11 chapters of the book are Paul’s treatise on orthodoxy, an examination of this gospel. The final chapters relate his view of orthopraxy, an explanation of how the righteous will live by faith.
Paul first makes a declaration of guilt, for the Gentiles (ch 1), the Jews (ch 2), and finally the whole world (ch 3). Justification, illustrated by Abraham and explained in Adam take up Romans 3:21-5:21, followed by sanctification in the flesh (ch 6), in the law (ch 7) and by the Spirit (ch 8). Paul then speaks to the scope of God’s redemption (9-11) before finally coming to the second part of his epistle in Romans 12, the fruit of redemption which is service and transformation. Specifically, Romans 12:1-2 looks like this:
Brothers:
I. An exhortation to holy living (12:1-2)
A. Present your bodies as a sacrifice (1)
1. A living sacrifice
2. A holy sacrifice
3. A well pleasing sacrifice
B. Do this because of God’s mercies to you
C. Do this as your act of worship
1. It is a reasonable response
II. A command (2)
A. Stop conforming to this world
B. Keep being transformed
1. By the renewing of your mind
2. So that you can prove the will of God
a. His will is good
b. His will is well-pleasing
c. His will is perfect
Paul finishes his letter by talking about the Christian’s duties in life (12-13),
Christian liberty (14), and final conclusion and salutations (15-16).
EXEGESIS
“Therefore I beseech you, brothers, by the mercies of God”
A famous axiom of Bible study is that whenever the reader encounters a “therefore” he must ask himself what it is there for. In this case, it refers the reader back to the aforementioned mercies in the previous chapters (Phillips 181). These mercies include God’s kindness (2:4), grace (4:16), love (5:5), patience (9:22), and chiefly the message of the gospel itself, namely justification by faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ (3:24-25).
Paul is directly addressing the believers and uses the word parakalw, which can be translated as exhort, beseech, or urge. It is stronger than asking, but it is not a command; God does not compel those whom he loves to respond, and yet, as will be shown later, there is little else to do but respond in love and obedience when considering the mercies of God. “God has saved us from sin, from its penalty and its power. He has saved us from self in all its features and all its forms. He has overruled the destinies of nations. He has triumphed in his grace and multiplied His mercies. He has, as it were, besieged us with His mercies, brought them up against us in countless number, built the bulwarks of His grace against our souls, poured a ceaseless cannonade of kindness in upon the breaches of our hearts” (Philips 181). It is because of these reasons that Paul is driven to beseech and exhort the believers; to “urge” is not the best translation as it does not carry the strength in English to fit the context.
“to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, well-pleasing to God”
The original recipients of this letter, being either Jewish or acquainted with Jewish practice, would have noted the contrasts between the sacrifice Paul is calling for and the ones they have witnessed or heard about in Jerusalem. First, it is not an animal that is being presented, but the body of the very believer himself. This is at once a harder sacrifice to make, for one is being asked to give up something he dearly loves, for “no one ever hated his own body” (Eph 5:29). It becomes further differentiated from and more difficult than Old Testament sacrifices with the word zwsan, which is translated as “living.” The form of the word (not to mention context) is present and active. Simply put this is a sacrifice that is continual and never dies; one cannot lay it on the alter and be done with it, but rather he must lay himself on the alter again and again and again.
It is not too much of an inference to say that when Paul refers to the sacrifice of the body he means more than flesh and blood. In 13:14 the apostle says to “make no put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no plans to satisfy the fleshly desires.” Perhaps the best picture of the depth and breadth of this sacrifice in 6:11-14, telling his readers, “you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its desires. And do not offer any parts of it to sin as weapons for unrighteousness. But as those who are alive from the dead, offer yourselves to God, and all the parts of yourselves to God as weapons for righteousness. For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace.”
Such a sacrifice, which includes a death to sin and a life lived for Christ, is both holy and euarestion, which can be translated either as acceptable or well-pleasing. “Well-pleasing” is the better choice as for the English reader what is acceptable in his or her life is not necessarily well-pleasing, yet for God this is not the case.
“which is your reasonable service of worship.”
The Greek logikhn, which is here translated as “reasonable,” also carries the meaning of “spiritual;” indeed in the only other place it is used in the New Testament it is translated thus, as Peter makes reference to “spiritual milk” (1 Peter 2:2). In the context of 1 Peter the best translation is obvious-the context of the verse doesn’t allow for the English word “reasonable.” The best translation for logikhn here in Romans must likewise submit to context. “The emphasis of 12:1 is on the word ‘Therefore’” (Hendriksen 402), which, as mentioned, refers the reader back to the mercies of God. In light of these mercies, the apostle says, it is only reasonable and rational that the believer should present his whole body to God.
Paul calls this the believer’s latrein, that is, he calls it the believer’s service or divine worship. There are several Greek words for worship, and while each emphasize a slightly different form of worship, each also shares the similarity of “humble service and a total life submitted to God, honoring him with what he values—this is the essence of true worship” (Christian Standard). latrew is the most service oriented of the words, for example true believers “serve (λατρευοντες) by the Spirit of God” (Phil 3:3). All of life is (or should be) an act of worship before God (Arnold 74), and much of American worship, be it traditional, contemporary or blended, is foreign to the Bible.
“And do not be conformed to this world”
“It is one thing to point out a goal to a person and encourage him to try to reach it. Paul has done this in verse 1. It is a different matter to show him what he should do to reach that goal. The apostle does not fail us at this point” (Hendriksen 404). The conjunction kai, translated “and,” links these two thoughts together. The idea of presenting one’s body as a living sacrifice, and the command not to conform but to transform go hand in hand and both are a response to the mercies of God.
Paul chooses to use the word mh, a strong negative, telling his readers to NOT be conformed to the world. Moreover, the word conformed, suschmatizesqe, is in the imperative mood, or mood of command. In other words, Paul is not making a suggestion, nor is he even beseeching as in verse one, but rather he is commanding. What makes this command particularly interesting is that it is in the middle voice (the passive voice is a possibility, but context suggests the middle voice as a better option). The middle voice implies that the readers were not actively conforming, but neither were they actively avoiding. The best translation of this verse would read: “stop allowing yourself to be conformed.” J.B. Phillips puts it this way: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold” (Philips 182). Paul also offers a commentary on himself: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals’” (1 Cor 15:33).
The apostle does not use the simple kosmos, or world, here, but instead says tw aiwni toutw, “to this age.” The culture surrounding the Romans bore striking similarities to today’s American culture in its corruption and immorality (Faber 2001), which can and does subtly makes its way into the church and the lives of those called out for Christ. Not only does yielding to the temptations of the world conflict with the desires of the Spirit and the purpose of the church, it only leads to disappointment and death, for “the fashion of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31).
“but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”
Here the apostle presents a strong contrast: Don’t be conformed, be transformed. The same Greek verb translates as transformed is used also in Matt 17:2 at the transfiguration of Christ, and the transfigured Christ stands in sharp contrast to fallen human nature. Here again is another command, the command to be transformed, and Christians from AD 57 until present day have worked hard to follow this command, finding on one extreme the ascetics, whipping themselves into a renewed mind and on the other end mega-preachers touting the psychological path to “Your Best Life Now.” Both, however, miss what Paul is saying. The verb metamorfusqe (transformed), is first in the present tense, meaning this transformation of which Paul speaks is continual. Second, it is in the passive voice, meaning that the reader, the one being transformed, cannot (nor should he) do this himself. Finally, it is in the imperative mood, the mood of command. The best translation would be “continue to let yourselves be transformed.”
Implied in this command is the amazing power for transformation mentioned earlier, namely, the Holy Spirit. Paul explains, “So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image” (2 Cor 3:18). The duty of the Christian is to allow the Spirit to change him, for God will not force change on him, and in allowing the Spirit to work in his life the believer will fulfill the command to stop allowing himself to be conformed.
Paul presents the renewing of the mind as the means by which the transformation takes place (Lenski 515), but to leave it at that is not satisfactory because the rest of scripture rejects intellectual faith as being of much value in and of itself, so it stands to reason that Paul means something more, and indeed while the renewal of the mind begins with right thinking it does not end there. In 7:22-25 Paul relates the mind to the inner man, which “is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor 4:16). How is it being renewed? “through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
“that you may prove what the will of God is”
Here is the reason for the command: that the believer may prove (in themselves) what the will of God is. dokimazein, which can be translated as prove or approve, is in the present, active form, which again stresses an action happening in present time and continuing to happen. This statement of the apostle’s shows that “in order to discern the will of God for their lives the believers cannot just depend on conscience. Conscience is indeed very important, but it must constantly be sent back to the school of Scripture to receive instruction from the Holy Spirit. It is in this manner that the believers become and remain aware of God’s will” (Hendriksen 406). Whole tomes are written on finding the will of God for one’s life, but Paul sums it up in a verse: stop being conformed to the world and allow yourself to be transformed by the Spirit. Then you will know the will of God.
“that which is good and well-pleasing and perfect.”
Just to make it a little easier, Paul tells the reader what the will of God is: that which is good and well-pleasing, and perfect. The word translated as “perfect,” teleion, may also be rendered “complete” or “mature,” all of which would do well here, each implying the other to be true. The goal of a life lived in accordance with God’s will is not salvation, for that has been freely given, but rather it is perfection, as Jesus himself commanded: “you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48). That this will happen in this lifetime is not likely, that this will happen in the next is a beautiful assurance. “Dear friends, we are already God’s children, but he has not yet shown us what we will be like when Christ appears. But we do know that we will be like him, for we will see him as he really is” (1 John 3:2).
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES
1. The believer is to respond to the mercies God has shown him. “The Christian life does not mean to stand still, but to move from that which is good to that which is better” (Luther 167). To put it another way, “Jesus loves you just the way you are, but he refuses to leave you that way” (Lucado 15). Much of the focus of the church is on getting people through the door, getting the commitment, and then unfortunately many new believers are then left hanging without discipleship. This is part of the reason for the prevalence of the vending machine god, the god that gives but never asks for anything in return. This is not the God of scripture; while God never asks His people to repay Him (for they never could) He demands that they respond to Him; doing so is the reasonable and rationale thing to do.
2. The believer is to respond with his whole person. Another unfortunate plague of American Christianity cheap grace, which is made possible when one gives only their intellectual consent, agreeing that Christ is who He says He is. As James says, even demons believe that. God asks for the whole person: body, mind, and soul; to submit anything less is to not submit.
3. If the believer does not maintain his guard, he will be just like the world. The Bible says that Christians are sojourners in this world, visitors waiting to go home. It is easy and convenient to adopt the ways of the culture in which one finds themselves, and in fact human nature is to imitate that which is constantly in his presence. Therefore, the believer should see to it that it is Jesus who is constantly in his presence. It is not enough to declare oneself different, one must actively be different.
4. The Spirit does the work if the believer lets him. It is not often that one can say that God is capitulating to the will of man, but in this case it is true. God is ready, willing, anxious, and able to wrought change in the life of His people, and indeed He is the only one who can do it, but He will not do it until the believer is open to it.
5. The will of God is knowable. It is both a grievous sin and intellectual and spiritual laziness when Agnostics say that the will of God is unknowable, and a tragedy when Christians say it. But like the idea of grace freely given, a knowable will of God (and thus a knowable God) is a concept that is hard to accept. But Christians can know the will of God and have peace in pursuing their ambitions when they are open to the transformative work of the Spirit.
APPLICATION
“I went into church and sat on the velvet pew. I watched as the sun came shining through the stained glass windows. The minister dressed in a velvet robe opened the golden gilded Bible, marked it with a silk bookmark and said, "If any man will be my disciple, said Jesus, let him deny himself, take up his cross, sell what he has, give it to the poor, and follow me” (Kierkegaard 90). The irony of Kierkegaard’s observation in unmistakable, so too is the sadness. Orthodoxy is useless if not accompanied by right practice, which is probably why the scriptures don’t teach doctrine just for fun. Rather, doctrine is always taught with a mind towards application.
The passage examined above is a command to transform. On it’s face it seems so hard to do; after all, if it were easy everyone would be perfect and mature, and yet no one reaches that goal until they see Jesus. But in fact the command given does not put the burden on the believer but on God-it is He who transforms. What the believer is asked to do, in the end, is simply believe.
In his book Blue Like Jazz Donald Miller relates a statement made by his friend Andrew the Protester, who says “You don’t believe what you say you believe.. you believe what you do.” Christians, especially the good, church-going Christians, speak often about the Holy Spirit and regeneration and transformation and changed hearts, all while warning themselves and their young about the dangers of the world, with its liberal media and sex-saturated ways, and yet very few things change. This is because words don’t equal belief and intellectual consent does not equal faith. There are several applications of this passage, but the most important is this: The believer must open his heart to the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and then live as one transformed. Live it, and it will be so.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faber, Charles. Class Notes: Romans. Boise Bible College. Boise, ID: 2001
Arnold, Clinton. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids: 2002
Bruce, F.F. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Romans. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans:
1985
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Romans. Grand Rapids, Baker
Books: 1980
Kierkegaard, Soren. The Essential Kierkegaard. (Edited by: Howard and Edna Hong).
Princeton University Press: 2000
Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1945
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Romans. (Translated by J.T. Mueller). Grand Rapids:
Kregal Publications, 1976 (reprint)
Lucado, Max. Just Like Jesus. Thomas Nelson Pub, 1998
Philips, John. Exploring Romans. Moody Press, Chicago: 1969
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=24 Accessed November 28, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Integrating Theology and Psychology: Healing the Soul
This is a long one! And it is very much a work and thought in progress.
The task of integrating the fields of psychology and theology is a daunting one. Evidence of this is seen in the amount of literature that is produced by authors approaching the subject from every possible angle. This is true not only within Christendom but in the secular realm as well. Freud epitomizes the feelings of some secular psychologists in saying, “The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief” (Freud 1927). His contemporary Carl Jung was a little more sympathetic to the idea of faith, acknowledging what he called a “god spot” in his clients (Ashdown 2003) and finding value in using personal faith as a tool toward growth and self-actualization (Jones and Butman 1991).
Christian psychologists and counselors respond on an even bigger continuum than their secular counterparts on the question of integrating faith and psychology. On one end are those that feel “True Christianity does not mix well with psychology” (Kilpatrick 1983), and that “God and His Word provide a completely sufficient foundation for mental-emotional health” (Bobgan 1979). Jay Adams is perhaps the strongest (or loudest) in asserting that psychology is really psycho-heresy, maintaining that “by studying the Word of God carefully and observing how the biblical principles describe the people you counsel...you can gain all the information and experience you need to become a competent, confident Christian counselor without a study of psychology” (Adams 1972). On the other end of the spectrum are people like Dr. Gary Collins, who writes, “In medicine, teaching and other ‘people-centered’ helping fields, we have been permitted to learn much about God’s creation through science and academic study. Why, then, should psychology be singled out as the one field that has nothing to contribute to the work of the counselor?” (Collins 1988, pg 20).
The question remains: how can one utilize the tool of psychology within a theological paradigm? Larry Crabb provides perhaps the most succinct answer in offering four helpful (and creative) categories. The final category, which he calls “Spoiling the Egyptians” is the only one that offers real integration. In a nutshell, this final category posits that the Christian counselor use the Bible as a filter for psychological theories; any tenant that can make it through the filter without contradicting word or principle is a valid theory and useful to the counselor (Crabb 1977).
This provides the base for the integration process but it is not a complete model in and of itself. An integrated psychology should pursue the best of both of the worlds it seeks to integrate. The goal of theology is much loftier than that of psychology. While psychology seeks to help the individual to function better in their given situation, many psychological theories have, unfortunately, lost focus on the actual human being underneath it all (Sartre, 1956). Theology seeks to know that human being and bring him into closer relationship with God. An integrated psychology should seek knowledge and technique from both schools that will help the counselor to lead the client toward such a relationship and in so doing help them become their more authentic self, able to better function in their given situation.
In its attempt to prove itself to be more of a science than a philosophy, much of psychology views humanity through purely naturalistic eyes. B.F. Skinner, a champion of empirical studies of human behavior asserts that “What is to be abolished is autonomous man-the inner man, the homunculus, the possessing demon, the man defended by the literature of freedom and dignity...His abolition has long been overdue” (Skinner 1971, pg 200). While not all of secular psychology takes such a hard line as behaviorism, the fact remains that absent a power higher than oneself, absent a creator, human beings are not much more than atomistic. In other words, “Persons are best understood by looking at the ‘atoms’ of their behavior patterns and how these atoms are arranged and related. These atoms are not seen as being held together by, or emanating from, any comprehensive core of the person which we might call self” (Jones and Butman 1991, pg 148).
For the Christian therapist (not to mention for clients struggling with very non-atomistic issues) such a definition is not satisfying. Everything about the human experience tells one that he is more than simply an organism whose emotions are mere chemical reactions to the environment. Nature itself compels individuals to believe that there is someone greater than nature; “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:19-20).
For the Christian therapist humans are first and foremost imago Dei. God states his intention that man be made in His image in Genesis 1:26 and in the very next verse states that what he intended had been carried out. That the image of God remains even after the fall is made clear in Genesis 9:6 when God appeals to this fact as his reasoning against murder. Paul explicates this concept even further in 1 Corinthians 11:7 by saying that man is not only in the image of God but is also the glory of God. James appeals to imago Dei in exhorting believers to speak well to each other (James 4:4). Again, for the Christian counselor, this must be at the core of how one approaches a client as well as how one uses the tool of psychology; a counselor must use the tools of psychology to discover, point out, and bring forth the image of God in the client.
Such a realization or bringing forth of a client’s imago Dei is what psychology refers to as the ontological “I-Am” experience. This word comes from two Greek words, “ontis,” meaning “to be,” and “logical,” meaning “the science of;” ontological therefore is the “science of being.” This experience is not a solution to a client’s problems in and of itself, but rather is a precondition necessary for full healing (Corsini 2000).
The Bible does not limit its exposition of anthropology to imago Dei, but goes on to speak of the dichotomy of the human being. Jesus tells his disciples to “not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt 10:28). One can see from this verse and others like it (James 2:26, Ecc 12:7) that persons are both material and immaterial in essence. If a counselor is to view their client holistically, he must take into account that the person sitting in front of them is both organic and spiritual in nature. These two very real facets of the human being interact constantly, producing a unified whole that the Bible calls a living soul; the Greek word for “living soul” is psuche, from which the English word psyche is derived (Breshears, 2004). While psychology debates which attributes belong to the organic brain and which belong to the emotional mind, theology answers by saying that all of one’s attributes can be attributed to the psyche, the soul, the unified living person that exists as an interaction between the immaterial and material parts. The mind, which is the subject of psychology, is an expression of the somatic, spiritual person, which is the subject of theology--healing such a person is the subject of integration.
A clear definition of mental health has always been lacking in psychology; what one thinks about mental health is often based on the particular theory or school of thought one subscribes to.
Moreover, individuals are biased in their picture of mental health because of the desire to view
oneself as normal. In other words, one’s own mental status and outlook is often the context for determining mental health in others (Wenzel, 2004) Theology is better equipped to offer a picture of mental health because, at least in this arena, it provides more objectivity than psychology with its human biases can offer. While “the Bible never claims to be a textbook on counseling” (Collins, 1988, pg 22), it does offer a blueprint of what mental health looks like: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control...”(Gal 5:22-23). In psychology, such characteristics are the result of mental health. In theology, such characteristics are the result of the Spirit.
If the mind is the expression of the unified psyche, then mental health is related to both the somatic and the spiritual sides of human nature. The Bible echos this statement as well. “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh” (2 Cor 12:7a). While the exact meaning of the “thorn in the flesh” must remain conjecture, most biblical scholars agree that what the apostle Paul is dealing with is physical. “Paul...writes the word flesh, which points to the frailty of his physical body. Most scholars agree that this term must be interpreted literally. That is, Paul endured physical pain” (Kistemaker, 1997, pg 415). Here the material (somatic) part of the apostle interacted in a physical way with the immaterial (spiritual) part, together effecting the mental outlook or mental health, that is, the mind of Paul. King David acknowledges the spiritual element in persons by asking, “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God” (Psalm 42:5). David obviously has a spiritual problem resulting in depression, one which he correctly attempts to solve by turning to God.
Mental health then must be more than Freudian drives, Jungian archetypes, or the conditioning of behaviorism. Mental health is based on the person, which the Bible calls a living soul or psyche, who is experiencing these things. All of this is in the context of imago Dei and results in conforming to the characteristics of the Spirit. It may assumed that people were created to have mental health and that this mental health is incumbent to being fully, authentically human. The Bible, and certainly psychology, offer no more compelling meaning behind life than to participate fully in the life of God. To the extent in which someone does this is the extent to
which they will have mental health.
Inasmuch as the definition of mental health is a disputed issue in psychology, so too are
the causes of mental illness. For much of psychology mental illness, or perhaps a better choice of words would be mental suffering, results from anxiety or other emotional pain, or perhaps from
some imbalance in the unconscious. For the psychoanalyst, for example, mental illness is the result of the ego failing in its responsibility to protect the mind from the threat of a breakthrough into consciousness of unacceptable impulses (Corsini 2000). Self-esteem (or the lack thereof) is also often scape-goated as the culprit for mental suffering; the perception of society in general is that suffering is bad and needs to be eliminated and a therapist’s job is to do just that.
Scripture doesn’t seem to support this view. To begin with, suffering, or trouble, is guaranteed. “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt 6:34); "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
Suffering is not abnormal in life and can not be done away with. Psychology must find a way to give that suffering meaning and purpose, and to this end theology can be of assistance. “But we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope” (Rom 5:3-4). The author of Hebrews gives perhaps the best treatise of suffering. Relating that some suffering can be God’s discipline, he writes:
“because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Heb 12:6-11).
It is important to differentiate between the types of suffering people endure. Some
suffering is the result of human action, some is the result of a broken world, and all of it is directly or indirectly related to sin (to be addressed later). Some suffering may be thought of as God’s discipline and used for that purpose. The teachings of scripture are clearly in contrast with the predominant societal view that suffering mentioned earlier. An integrated psychology must take into account the truths of scripture, in this case that suffering is guaranteed, that there is meaning to it, and that it serves a purpose.
One form of suffering spoken of often in psychology is anxiety. Anxiety, or angst, can be a stimulus to positive change and growth. “What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather a striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him” (Frankl 1963, pg 166). Scripture hints at what that meaning in regards to suffering may be: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ” (2 Cor 1:3-5).
It should be noted that the above verse does not say that God sent the suffering for the purpose of being able to comfort others, but that he sent comfort for the purpose of being able to comfort others; the sufferings, as stated earlier, come with a fallen world. God offers a purpose and meaning behind suffering in sending mercy and comfort that may be in turn passed on to others.
The effects of sin in the life of an individual must be understood for a truly integrated psychology to exist. That mental, emotional, and spiritual suffering exist at all is the result of sin. For the sake of understanding it is necessary to define just exactly what is meant by sin. The biblical word for sin, harmatia, can be defined as “to miss the mark.” Sin is anything that misses the mark of God’s creation as originally designed, without blemish or defect. It is not simply a wrongdoing, but a state of being for the individual and for the world signifying a rupture in the personal relationship with God once enjoyed prior to the Fall. “It can be thought of as a malignant, personal power that holds humanity in its grasp” (Elwell 2001, pg 1103). Nobody can claim that they have been untouched by sin, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and the effect of sin is not limited only to the spiritual or even to the emotional, but it includes even suffering of an organic nature. “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Rom 8:20-22). This then is the biggest obstacle a counselor faces in trying to help a client: the impact of sin in their life and in their world. A messianic take on psychology offers the most helpful way of dealing with that sin.
“Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isa 53:4-5). Various interpretations about what it means to be healed in this context abound, but what can be agreed on is that at the very least Christ’s work on the cross brings spiritual healing. Christ must be the context for all psychological healing; if the basis of suffering is spiritual, it stands to reason that the basis of healing will likewise be found in the spiritual. It is in bringing the client closer and closer towards Christlikeness, towards the fruits of the Spirit and away from the influence of sin that healing can come to the psyche.
What has been presented thus far is theological truth which is present and active in the lives of human beings. That humans are created in the image of God, that sin has marred that image and in fact the whole environment, and that true and lasting healing can only be fully accomplished in the context of the work of Christ on the cross are posited here to be objective truths. How that truth plays itself out in one’s paradigm, in the individuals reality, is a matter of subjectivity and psychology. “There remains in our day the chasm between truth and reality. And the crucial question that confronts us in psychology is precisely the chasm between what is abstractly true and what is existentially real for the given living person” (Yalom, as cited in Corsini 2000, pg 281). An integrative psychology must look for the reality underlying both subjectivity and objectivity; it must study both the experience and the one doing the experiencing; an integrative therapy must seek to discover the living person amid the “dehumanization” of modern culture which can not accept the realities of suffering or sin (Corsini 2000).
Yalom (1981) identifies four ultimate concerns which must be dealt with within each person’s paradigm and as such are significant issues in therapy: death, isolation, meaninglessness, and freedom. Awareness of each of these concerns leads to anxiety and anxiety leads to either a defense mechanism or to healthy resolution (Corsini 2000); scripture gives clues as to what a
healthy resolution should look like.
Inner conflict exists between the awareness of the inevitability of death and the simultaneous desire to continue to live. "The basic anxiety, the anxiety of a finite being about the threat of non-being, cannot be eliminated. It belongs to existence itself" (Tillich 1952). To cope with this anxiety individuals erect barriers or defense mechanisms against death awareness. As these are a denial of reality they are maladaptive. As postulated earlier anxiety in and of itself is not something to be done away with but rather something to be listened to. Death is a primary example of how this is so. Scripture calls on the individual to be aware of the inevitability of death: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). The psychologist Carl Jung said that when one is afraid of falling, the only safety consists in deliberately jumping. A proper integrative response to the fear of death is to go ahead and die: “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules” (Col 2:20); “For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory” (Col 3:3-4).
One can easily find within scripture a theme of spending life preparing for death (or more appropriately life after death). The thesis statement for such a theme is in the words of Christ, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). Developmental psychology offers hints of a pragmatic way to live out such a command and thus prepare for death. In studying seniors developmental psychologists have found three main regrets: 1) not enough risks taken, 2) not leaving a legacy, and 3) not spending enough time with friends and
family (Butler 1982). One may seek to avoid these regrets and thus much of the angst that comes with death by living out the words of Christ, namely, loving God and loving others; the existentialist Kierkegaard (1843) gave a précis statement for one who has come to a healthy resolution over death: “There are, as is known, insects that die in the moment of fertilization. So it is with all joy: life’s highest, most splendid moment of enjoyment is accompanied by death.”
The second ultimate concern which man must deal with is isolation. There are countless examples in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, that posit the principle that extended interpersonal isolation is not a healthy way of life. Man is, in fact, created with an inner need to be with someone else (Gen 2:18). Isolation of this type leads to deficient social skills and psychopathology within the realm of intimacy (Corsini, 2000).
Existential isolation, unlike other forms of isolation, is not something to be overcome, but rather it is an aspect of life that must be acknowledged. Existential isolation refers to the unbridgeable gap in relationships; each person must enter, experience, and exit existence alone (Corsini, 2000). Moreover, each person must enter into eternity alone, as observed by the apostle John, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books” (Rev 20:12).
As said before, Christ is the context for healing, and those who are in Christ do not have the same struggle with existential isolation that those who do not know him must face. While it is true that within every human relationship there exists still ultimate isolation, for no one can experience the consciousness of another, a relationship with God does not include such isolation. For the believer, God is always present in him, “And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (Eph 2:22), and he in God, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:26-27). At the culmination of human authenticity isolation is overcome because the individual is participating fully in the life of another, namely the life of God.
The third ultimate concern which each person must deal with is meaninglessness. If all must die, and if all are truly alone, then what possible meaning can life have? A sense of meaning is in fact so necessary to the life of man that his perceptual neuropsychology is such that it will
find meaning even if none truly exists; random stimuli is instantly patterned by the brain in an
attempt to find meaning (Corsini, 2000). This phenomena was first postulated not by existential psychology but by cognitive theorist Jean Piaget in his theory about infants and their schemas (Sdorow 1990). If the stimuli defies patterning one experiences dysphoria which persists until the situation is fit into recognizable patterns (Corsini, 2000).
The author of Ecclesiastes recognized the necessity for a sense of meaning, and had
trouble finding such a sense in any aspect of life. “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Ecc 1:14). Further in the book he says, “Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless” (Ecc 2:15). Because he must ultimately die and preserve nothing which he has made, because he can not share his wisdom in a more intimate way, because of the randomness of life, the author concludes in the beginning that life is meaningless. However, he does not stay with that conclusion. After deciding that the world is in God’s hands, that He has in fact set a time for everything and that His work will last forever, the author surmises that his life has meaning because “God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc 12:14).
This final assessment of the author is critical, because it is from an individual’s schema of meaning that one derives his hierarchy of values (Corsini, 2000). For this reason an integrated psychology can not be a valueless psychology. It is rather a psychology based in an acceptance of absolute truth and the rejection of a postmodern value system, which can provide nothing for the healing of internal conflicts. A sense of meaning not only provides the “why” to life but the “how” as well (Frankl, 1963).
The final ultimate concern to be dealt with is freedom, which is the key, psychologically speaking, to real change and healing. The striving and yearning for freedom has been a mark of the human condition as far back as history records. But the experience of true, existential freedom requires a level of functioning that many if not most people are either not capable of or too afraid to experience, for freedom of this nature refers to the fact that the individual alone is responsible for his own actions; the individual is the author of his life story and is what he is because of the choices he has made. For this reason people are said to be “condemned to
freedom” (Sartre, 1956, pg 631). The realization of true freedom, and the corresponding implications of such freedom leads to anxiety, and this “is the dizziness of freedom, which emerges when the spirit wants to posit the synthesis and freedom looks down into possibility, laying hold of finiteness to support itself. Freedom succumbs in this dizziness. Further than this, psychology cannot and will not go. In that very moment everything is changed, and freedom, when it again rises, sees that it is guilty. Between these two moments lies the leap, which
no science has explained and which no science will explain” (Kierkegaard, 1844).
That human beings have freedom and responsibility for that freedom is clear is scripture. Amongst the many examples, people are free to choose their leaders (Deut 1:13), to choose to fear God (Prov 1:29), to choose whose kingdom (cosmically speaking) they will serve (Josh
24:15), to choose right and wrong (John 7:17), to choose to love or hate God (James 4:4), and to choose life or death, blessings or curses (Deut 30:19). Two important psychological concepts which these and other scriptures illustrate or the ideas of willing and decision. In therapy, it is the will that allows the person to pass from responsibility to action, and then to change. This action requires a decision (May, 1969), and indeed scripture demands one.
With the importance of choice and responsibility in relationship to change as a framework, the key to healing in an integrative psychology stands on the words of Paul: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is––his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom 12:2). Paul is telling the reader to choose not to conform to a sin-marred world. Included in this is the psychological damage that sin does to the psyche. Instead, the reader is to choose a different way of thinking, a new and transformed self that is closer in likeness to God, which is to be a true and authentic self.
The above verse is not limited to the spiritual, implications also exist for the cognitive part of the psyche as well. William James, the father of psychology, says essentially the same thing as Paul, “The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives” (Sdorow, 1990). The Bible agrees with James on this point: “Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts” (Prov 4:23).
Both psychology and theology acknowledge the importance of the thought processes and an integrated psychology must keep the cognitive aspect in mind. “A theory that denies that thoughts can regulate actions does not lend itself readily to the explanation of complex human behavior” (Bandura, 1977, pg 15). The antecedent to human behavior, as seen in both scripture and empirical study, is the cognitive process. Moreover, these cognitive processes tend to be predictable and changeable (Jones and Butman, 1991). This is similar to the idea behind
Social Learning Theory, which at its roots holds three basic tenants: First, response consequences influence an individual’s behavior. This is simply an acknowledgment of positive and negative reinforcers and punishments. It is clear in scripture that God does not hesitate to use reward and punishment as motivational tools (Deut 11:26, Prov 28:20), so it stands to reason that His creatures will learn in this way. Second, humans learn by observing others (modeling). God knows this and exhorts His people to model Christlike (i.e. healthy) behavior (Matt 5:16). Third, individuals are most likely to model behaviors of individuals they identify with (Woodward 1982). To this third tenant scripture speaks very clearly. The goal is to identify with and thus model Christ (1 Cor 11:1, Phil 3:10, 1 Tim 1:16, 1 Pet 2:21).
Another central tenant of both cognitive theory and the Bible is what psychology labels reciprocal interweaving, which posits that a person’s behavior is bi-directionally influenced by multiple factors, including one’s thoughts, emotions, personal characteristics, beliefs, and the environment (Bandura 1977). By altering one or more of these determinants man has a tremendous ability to influence his own destiny. This is why scripture warns so clearly to be cautious of how one forms his environment (2 Cor 6:14, 1 John 2:15).
One of the most important tenants of Social-Cognitive theory and of an integrated psychology is the self-regulatory capacity of human beings. The self-regulatory system mediates external influences to provide a basis for purposeful action. It is with the self-regulatory system that people begin to take control their thoughts, feelings, and actions (Bandura 1986). An integrated psychology might say it like this: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Through his ability to self-regulate, or choose, man can use his mind to regulate his external actions and the consequences of those actions. Social-Cognitive
techniques can thus be used to accomplish existential goals in a theological framework.
“An aching soul is evidence not of neurosis or spiritual immaturity, but of realism” (Crabb, 1988, pg 14). It is a reality in this world that sin has caused suffering, and that no one is immune from it. But at the same time it is also a reality that imago Dei is present in every person and that change and healing is possible. “God has endowed us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in God. This tendency has been in part overlaid or
suppressed by sin. Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same natural spontaneity that we believe in the existence of other persons, an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd”
(Platinga, 1983, pg 66).
The integration of psychology and theology makes both the psychologist and the theologian nervous in turn. But for someone who wishes to counsel integration is absolutely essential. Secular psychology alone is at a disadvantage because it is unable to see the person, the living soul, for what he or she really is; a study of the brain without a simultaneous study of the one who created it is void of healing because it lacks an understanding of the grace necessary to achieve healing. Theology without a proper understanding of psychology is also lacking, for without a proper understanding of the created beings, the study of the creator is reduced to an academic pursuit of doctrine.
A Christian counselor can not promise to heal every emotional wound that a client may bring to him, but then, he does not need to. He needs only to be faithful with what God has given him (this is no small task) and to be ready to do that which is the duty of all Christians-to manifest the love of Christ and preach the Good News in the unique way in which God, through His providence, has blessed him.
References
Adams, Jay. (1972) The big umbrella. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Ashdown, Scott. (2003) Class Lecture. Portland: Western Seminary
Bandura, Albert. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, Albert. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bobgan, Martin and Deidre. (1979) The psychological way/the spiritual way. Minneapolis: Bethany House
Breshears, Gerry. (2004) Class Lecture. Portland: Western Seminary
Butler, R., & Lewis, M. (1982). Aging and mental health: positive psychosocial and biomedical approaches (3rd ed.). St Louis: C. V. Mosby
Collins, Gary. (1988) Christian counseling: a comprehensive guide (Rev. Ed.). Dallas: Word Publishing
Crabb, Larry. (1977) Effective biblical counseling. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Crabb, Larry. (1988) Inside out. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress
Elwell, Walter A. (2001) Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
Frankl, Victor. (1963) Man’s search for meaning: an introduction to logotherapy. New York: Pocket Books
Freud, Sigmund. (1927) The future of an illusion. New York: Norton & Company (1989)
Jones, S.L., and Butman, R.E. (1991) Modern psychotherapies: a comprehensive Christian approach. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press
Kierkegaard, Soren. (1843) Either/or. New York: HarperCollins (1986)
Kierkegaard, Soren. (1844) Concept of anxiety. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1981)
Kilpatrick, William. (1983) Psychological seduction: the failure of modern psychology. Nashville: Nelson
Kistemaker, Simon J. (1997) New testament commentary: II corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
May, Rollo. (1969) Love and will. New York: Norton
May, Rollo, and Yalom, Irvin. (2000) Existential Psychotherapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies. (6th Ed.) (pp. 273-302). Itsaca, IL: F.E. Peacock
Platinga, Alvin. (1983) Reason and belief. Notre Dame: UNDpress
Sartre, J.P. (1956) Being and nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library
Sdorow, Lester M. (1990) Psychology (3rd Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers
Skinner, B.F. (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Tillich, Paul. (1952) The courage to be. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Woodward WR. (1982) The "discovery" of social behaviorism and social learning theory, 1870- 1980. American Psychologist, 37(4):396-410
Yalom, Irvin. (1981) Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books
The task of integrating the fields of psychology and theology is a daunting one. Evidence of this is seen in the amount of literature that is produced by authors approaching the subject from every possible angle. This is true not only within Christendom but in the secular realm as well. Freud epitomizes the feelings of some secular psychologists in saying, “The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief” (Freud 1927). His contemporary Carl Jung was a little more sympathetic to the idea of faith, acknowledging what he called a “god spot” in his clients (Ashdown 2003) and finding value in using personal faith as a tool toward growth and self-actualization (Jones and Butman 1991).
Christian psychologists and counselors respond on an even bigger continuum than their secular counterparts on the question of integrating faith and psychology. On one end are those that feel “True Christianity does not mix well with psychology” (Kilpatrick 1983), and that “God and His Word provide a completely sufficient foundation for mental-emotional health” (Bobgan 1979). Jay Adams is perhaps the strongest (or loudest) in asserting that psychology is really psycho-heresy, maintaining that “by studying the Word of God carefully and observing how the biblical principles describe the people you counsel...you can gain all the information and experience you need to become a competent, confident Christian counselor without a study of psychology” (Adams 1972). On the other end of the spectrum are people like Dr. Gary Collins, who writes, “In medicine, teaching and other ‘people-centered’ helping fields, we have been permitted to learn much about God’s creation through science and academic study. Why, then, should psychology be singled out as the one field that has nothing to contribute to the work of the counselor?” (Collins 1988, pg 20).
The question remains: how can one utilize the tool of psychology within a theological paradigm? Larry Crabb provides perhaps the most succinct answer in offering four helpful (and creative) categories. The final category, which he calls “Spoiling the Egyptians” is the only one that offers real integration. In a nutshell, this final category posits that the Christian counselor use the Bible as a filter for psychological theories; any tenant that can make it through the filter without contradicting word or principle is a valid theory and useful to the counselor (Crabb 1977).
This provides the base for the integration process but it is not a complete model in and of itself. An integrated psychology should pursue the best of both of the worlds it seeks to integrate. The goal of theology is much loftier than that of psychology. While psychology seeks to help the individual to function better in their given situation, many psychological theories have, unfortunately, lost focus on the actual human being underneath it all (Sartre, 1956). Theology seeks to know that human being and bring him into closer relationship with God. An integrated psychology should seek knowledge and technique from both schools that will help the counselor to lead the client toward such a relationship and in so doing help them become their more authentic self, able to better function in their given situation.
In its attempt to prove itself to be more of a science than a philosophy, much of psychology views humanity through purely naturalistic eyes. B.F. Skinner, a champion of empirical studies of human behavior asserts that “What is to be abolished is autonomous man-the inner man, the homunculus, the possessing demon, the man defended by the literature of freedom and dignity...His abolition has long been overdue” (Skinner 1971, pg 200). While not all of secular psychology takes such a hard line as behaviorism, the fact remains that absent a power higher than oneself, absent a creator, human beings are not much more than atomistic. In other words, “Persons are best understood by looking at the ‘atoms’ of their behavior patterns and how these atoms are arranged and related. These atoms are not seen as being held together by, or emanating from, any comprehensive core of the person which we might call self” (Jones and Butman 1991, pg 148).
For the Christian therapist (not to mention for clients struggling with very non-atomistic issues) such a definition is not satisfying. Everything about the human experience tells one that he is more than simply an organism whose emotions are mere chemical reactions to the environment. Nature itself compels individuals to believe that there is someone greater than nature; “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:19-20).
For the Christian therapist humans are first and foremost imago Dei. God states his intention that man be made in His image in Genesis 1:26 and in the very next verse states that what he intended had been carried out. That the image of God remains even after the fall is made clear in Genesis 9:6 when God appeals to this fact as his reasoning against murder. Paul explicates this concept even further in 1 Corinthians 11:7 by saying that man is not only in the image of God but is also the glory of God. James appeals to imago Dei in exhorting believers to speak well to each other (James 4:4). Again, for the Christian counselor, this must be at the core of how one approaches a client as well as how one uses the tool of psychology; a counselor must use the tools of psychology to discover, point out, and bring forth the image of God in the client.
Such a realization or bringing forth of a client’s imago Dei is what psychology refers to as the ontological “I-Am” experience. This word comes from two Greek words, “ontis,” meaning “to be,” and “logical,” meaning “the science of;” ontological therefore is the “science of being.” This experience is not a solution to a client’s problems in and of itself, but rather is a precondition necessary for full healing (Corsini 2000).
The Bible does not limit its exposition of anthropology to imago Dei, but goes on to speak of the dichotomy of the human being. Jesus tells his disciples to “not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt 10:28). One can see from this verse and others like it (James 2:26, Ecc 12:7) that persons are both material and immaterial in essence. If a counselor is to view their client holistically, he must take into account that the person sitting in front of them is both organic and spiritual in nature. These two very real facets of the human being interact constantly, producing a unified whole that the Bible calls a living soul; the Greek word for “living soul” is psuche, from which the English word psyche is derived (Breshears, 2004). While psychology debates which attributes belong to the organic brain and which belong to the emotional mind, theology answers by saying that all of one’s attributes can be attributed to the psyche, the soul, the unified living person that exists as an interaction between the immaterial and material parts. The mind, which is the subject of psychology, is an expression of the somatic, spiritual person, which is the subject of theology--healing such a person is the subject of integration.
A clear definition of mental health has always been lacking in psychology; what one thinks about mental health is often based on the particular theory or school of thought one subscribes to.
Moreover, individuals are biased in their picture of mental health because of the desire to view
oneself as normal. In other words, one’s own mental status and outlook is often the context for determining mental health in others (Wenzel, 2004) Theology is better equipped to offer a picture of mental health because, at least in this arena, it provides more objectivity than psychology with its human biases can offer. While “the Bible never claims to be a textbook on counseling” (Collins, 1988, pg 22), it does offer a blueprint of what mental health looks like: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control...”(Gal 5:22-23). In psychology, such characteristics are the result of mental health. In theology, such characteristics are the result of the Spirit.
If the mind is the expression of the unified psyche, then mental health is related to both the somatic and the spiritual sides of human nature. The Bible echos this statement as well. “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh” (2 Cor 12:7a). While the exact meaning of the “thorn in the flesh” must remain conjecture, most biblical scholars agree that what the apostle Paul is dealing with is physical. “Paul...writes the word flesh, which points to the frailty of his physical body. Most scholars agree that this term must be interpreted literally. That is, Paul endured physical pain” (Kistemaker, 1997, pg 415). Here the material (somatic) part of the apostle interacted in a physical way with the immaterial (spiritual) part, together effecting the mental outlook or mental health, that is, the mind of Paul. King David acknowledges the spiritual element in persons by asking, “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God” (Psalm 42:5). David obviously has a spiritual problem resulting in depression, one which he correctly attempts to solve by turning to God.
Mental health then must be more than Freudian drives, Jungian archetypes, or the conditioning of behaviorism. Mental health is based on the person, which the Bible calls a living soul or psyche, who is experiencing these things. All of this is in the context of imago Dei and results in conforming to the characteristics of the Spirit. It may assumed that people were created to have mental health and that this mental health is incumbent to being fully, authentically human. The Bible, and certainly psychology, offer no more compelling meaning behind life than to participate fully in the life of God. To the extent in which someone does this is the extent to
which they will have mental health.
Inasmuch as the definition of mental health is a disputed issue in psychology, so too are
the causes of mental illness. For much of psychology mental illness, or perhaps a better choice of words would be mental suffering, results from anxiety or other emotional pain, or perhaps from
some imbalance in the unconscious. For the psychoanalyst, for example, mental illness is the result of the ego failing in its responsibility to protect the mind from the threat of a breakthrough into consciousness of unacceptable impulses (Corsini 2000). Self-esteem (or the lack thereof) is also often scape-goated as the culprit for mental suffering; the perception of society in general is that suffering is bad and needs to be eliminated and a therapist’s job is to do just that.
Scripture doesn’t seem to support this view. To begin with, suffering, or trouble, is guaranteed. “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt 6:34); "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
Suffering is not abnormal in life and can not be done away with. Psychology must find a way to give that suffering meaning and purpose, and to this end theology can be of assistance. “But we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope” (Rom 5:3-4). The author of Hebrews gives perhaps the best treatise of suffering. Relating that some suffering can be God’s discipline, he writes:
“because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Heb 12:6-11).
It is important to differentiate between the types of suffering people endure. Some
suffering is the result of human action, some is the result of a broken world, and all of it is directly or indirectly related to sin (to be addressed later). Some suffering may be thought of as God’s discipline and used for that purpose. The teachings of scripture are clearly in contrast with the predominant societal view that suffering mentioned earlier. An integrated psychology must take into account the truths of scripture, in this case that suffering is guaranteed, that there is meaning to it, and that it serves a purpose.
One form of suffering spoken of often in psychology is anxiety. Anxiety, or angst, can be a stimulus to positive change and growth. “What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather a striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him” (Frankl 1963, pg 166). Scripture hints at what that meaning in regards to suffering may be: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ” (2 Cor 1:3-5).
It should be noted that the above verse does not say that God sent the suffering for the purpose of being able to comfort others, but that he sent comfort for the purpose of being able to comfort others; the sufferings, as stated earlier, come with a fallen world. God offers a purpose and meaning behind suffering in sending mercy and comfort that may be in turn passed on to others.
The effects of sin in the life of an individual must be understood for a truly integrated psychology to exist. That mental, emotional, and spiritual suffering exist at all is the result of sin. For the sake of understanding it is necessary to define just exactly what is meant by sin. The biblical word for sin, harmatia, can be defined as “to miss the mark.” Sin is anything that misses the mark of God’s creation as originally designed, without blemish or defect. It is not simply a wrongdoing, but a state of being for the individual and for the world signifying a rupture in the personal relationship with God once enjoyed prior to the Fall. “It can be thought of as a malignant, personal power that holds humanity in its grasp” (Elwell 2001, pg 1103). Nobody can claim that they have been untouched by sin, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and the effect of sin is not limited only to the spiritual or even to the emotional, but it includes even suffering of an organic nature. “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Rom 8:20-22). This then is the biggest obstacle a counselor faces in trying to help a client: the impact of sin in their life and in their world. A messianic take on psychology offers the most helpful way of dealing with that sin.
“Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isa 53:4-5). Various interpretations about what it means to be healed in this context abound, but what can be agreed on is that at the very least Christ’s work on the cross brings spiritual healing. Christ must be the context for all psychological healing; if the basis of suffering is spiritual, it stands to reason that the basis of healing will likewise be found in the spiritual. It is in bringing the client closer and closer towards Christlikeness, towards the fruits of the Spirit and away from the influence of sin that healing can come to the psyche.
What has been presented thus far is theological truth which is present and active in the lives of human beings. That humans are created in the image of God, that sin has marred that image and in fact the whole environment, and that true and lasting healing can only be fully accomplished in the context of the work of Christ on the cross are posited here to be objective truths. How that truth plays itself out in one’s paradigm, in the individuals reality, is a matter of subjectivity and psychology. “There remains in our day the chasm between truth and reality. And the crucial question that confronts us in psychology is precisely the chasm between what is abstractly true and what is existentially real for the given living person” (Yalom, as cited in Corsini 2000, pg 281). An integrative psychology must look for the reality underlying both subjectivity and objectivity; it must study both the experience and the one doing the experiencing; an integrative therapy must seek to discover the living person amid the “dehumanization” of modern culture which can not accept the realities of suffering or sin (Corsini 2000).
Yalom (1981) identifies four ultimate concerns which must be dealt with within each person’s paradigm and as such are significant issues in therapy: death, isolation, meaninglessness, and freedom. Awareness of each of these concerns leads to anxiety and anxiety leads to either a defense mechanism or to healthy resolution (Corsini 2000); scripture gives clues as to what a
healthy resolution should look like.
Inner conflict exists between the awareness of the inevitability of death and the simultaneous desire to continue to live. "The basic anxiety, the anxiety of a finite being about the threat of non-being, cannot be eliminated. It belongs to existence itself" (Tillich 1952). To cope with this anxiety individuals erect barriers or defense mechanisms against death awareness. As these are a denial of reality they are maladaptive. As postulated earlier anxiety in and of itself is not something to be done away with but rather something to be listened to. Death is a primary example of how this is so. Scripture calls on the individual to be aware of the inevitability of death: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). The psychologist Carl Jung said that when one is afraid of falling, the only safety consists in deliberately jumping. A proper integrative response to the fear of death is to go ahead and die: “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules” (Col 2:20); “For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory” (Col 3:3-4).
One can easily find within scripture a theme of spending life preparing for death (or more appropriately life after death). The thesis statement for such a theme is in the words of Christ, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). Developmental psychology offers hints of a pragmatic way to live out such a command and thus prepare for death. In studying seniors developmental psychologists have found three main regrets: 1) not enough risks taken, 2) not leaving a legacy, and 3) not spending enough time with friends and
family (Butler 1982). One may seek to avoid these regrets and thus much of the angst that comes with death by living out the words of Christ, namely, loving God and loving others; the existentialist Kierkegaard (1843) gave a précis statement for one who has come to a healthy resolution over death: “There are, as is known, insects that die in the moment of fertilization. So it is with all joy: life’s highest, most splendid moment of enjoyment is accompanied by death.”
The second ultimate concern which man must deal with is isolation. There are countless examples in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, that posit the principle that extended interpersonal isolation is not a healthy way of life. Man is, in fact, created with an inner need to be with someone else (Gen 2:18). Isolation of this type leads to deficient social skills and psychopathology within the realm of intimacy (Corsini, 2000).
Existential isolation, unlike other forms of isolation, is not something to be overcome, but rather it is an aspect of life that must be acknowledged. Existential isolation refers to the unbridgeable gap in relationships; each person must enter, experience, and exit existence alone (Corsini, 2000). Moreover, each person must enter into eternity alone, as observed by the apostle John, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books” (Rev 20:12).
As said before, Christ is the context for healing, and those who are in Christ do not have the same struggle with existential isolation that those who do not know him must face. While it is true that within every human relationship there exists still ultimate isolation, for no one can experience the consciousness of another, a relationship with God does not include such isolation. For the believer, God is always present in him, “And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (Eph 2:22), and he in God, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:26-27). At the culmination of human authenticity isolation is overcome because the individual is participating fully in the life of another, namely the life of God.
The third ultimate concern which each person must deal with is meaninglessness. If all must die, and if all are truly alone, then what possible meaning can life have? A sense of meaning is in fact so necessary to the life of man that his perceptual neuropsychology is such that it will
find meaning even if none truly exists; random stimuli is instantly patterned by the brain in an
attempt to find meaning (Corsini, 2000). This phenomena was first postulated not by existential psychology but by cognitive theorist Jean Piaget in his theory about infants and their schemas (Sdorow 1990). If the stimuli defies patterning one experiences dysphoria which persists until the situation is fit into recognizable patterns (Corsini, 2000).
The author of Ecclesiastes recognized the necessity for a sense of meaning, and had
trouble finding such a sense in any aspect of life. “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Ecc 1:14). Further in the book he says, “Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless” (Ecc 2:15). Because he must ultimately die and preserve nothing which he has made, because he can not share his wisdom in a more intimate way, because of the randomness of life, the author concludes in the beginning that life is meaningless. However, he does not stay with that conclusion. After deciding that the world is in God’s hands, that He has in fact set a time for everything and that His work will last forever, the author surmises that his life has meaning because “God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc 12:14).
This final assessment of the author is critical, because it is from an individual’s schema of meaning that one derives his hierarchy of values (Corsini, 2000). For this reason an integrated psychology can not be a valueless psychology. It is rather a psychology based in an acceptance of absolute truth and the rejection of a postmodern value system, which can provide nothing for the healing of internal conflicts. A sense of meaning not only provides the “why” to life but the “how” as well (Frankl, 1963).
The final ultimate concern to be dealt with is freedom, which is the key, psychologically speaking, to real change and healing. The striving and yearning for freedom has been a mark of the human condition as far back as history records. But the experience of true, existential freedom requires a level of functioning that many if not most people are either not capable of or too afraid to experience, for freedom of this nature refers to the fact that the individual alone is responsible for his own actions; the individual is the author of his life story and is what he is because of the choices he has made. For this reason people are said to be “condemned to
freedom” (Sartre, 1956, pg 631). The realization of true freedom, and the corresponding implications of such freedom leads to anxiety, and this “is the dizziness of freedom, which emerges when the spirit wants to posit the synthesis and freedom looks down into possibility, laying hold of finiteness to support itself. Freedom succumbs in this dizziness. Further than this, psychology cannot and will not go. In that very moment everything is changed, and freedom, when it again rises, sees that it is guilty. Between these two moments lies the leap, which
no science has explained and which no science will explain” (Kierkegaard, 1844).
That human beings have freedom and responsibility for that freedom is clear is scripture. Amongst the many examples, people are free to choose their leaders (Deut 1:13), to choose to fear God (Prov 1:29), to choose whose kingdom (cosmically speaking) they will serve (Josh
24:15), to choose right and wrong (John 7:17), to choose to love or hate God (James 4:4), and to choose life or death, blessings or curses (Deut 30:19). Two important psychological concepts which these and other scriptures illustrate or the ideas of willing and decision. In therapy, it is the will that allows the person to pass from responsibility to action, and then to change. This action requires a decision (May, 1969), and indeed scripture demands one.
With the importance of choice and responsibility in relationship to change as a framework, the key to healing in an integrative psychology stands on the words of Paul: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is––his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom 12:2). Paul is telling the reader to choose not to conform to a sin-marred world. Included in this is the psychological damage that sin does to the psyche. Instead, the reader is to choose a different way of thinking, a new and transformed self that is closer in likeness to God, which is to be a true and authentic self.
The above verse is not limited to the spiritual, implications also exist for the cognitive part of the psyche as well. William James, the father of psychology, says essentially the same thing as Paul, “The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives” (Sdorow, 1990). The Bible agrees with James on this point: “Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts” (Prov 4:23).
Both psychology and theology acknowledge the importance of the thought processes and an integrated psychology must keep the cognitive aspect in mind. “A theory that denies that thoughts can regulate actions does not lend itself readily to the explanation of complex human behavior” (Bandura, 1977, pg 15). The antecedent to human behavior, as seen in both scripture and empirical study, is the cognitive process. Moreover, these cognitive processes tend to be predictable and changeable (Jones and Butman, 1991). This is similar to the idea behind
Social Learning Theory, which at its roots holds three basic tenants: First, response consequences influence an individual’s behavior. This is simply an acknowledgment of positive and negative reinforcers and punishments. It is clear in scripture that God does not hesitate to use reward and punishment as motivational tools (Deut 11:26, Prov 28:20), so it stands to reason that His creatures will learn in this way. Second, humans learn by observing others (modeling). God knows this and exhorts His people to model Christlike (i.e. healthy) behavior (Matt 5:16). Third, individuals are most likely to model behaviors of individuals they identify with (Woodward 1982). To this third tenant scripture speaks very clearly. The goal is to identify with and thus model Christ (1 Cor 11:1, Phil 3:10, 1 Tim 1:16, 1 Pet 2:21).
Another central tenant of both cognitive theory and the Bible is what psychology labels reciprocal interweaving, which posits that a person’s behavior is bi-directionally influenced by multiple factors, including one’s thoughts, emotions, personal characteristics, beliefs, and the environment (Bandura 1977). By altering one or more of these determinants man has a tremendous ability to influence his own destiny. This is why scripture warns so clearly to be cautious of how one forms his environment (2 Cor 6:14, 1 John 2:15).
One of the most important tenants of Social-Cognitive theory and of an integrated psychology is the self-regulatory capacity of human beings. The self-regulatory system mediates external influences to provide a basis for purposeful action. It is with the self-regulatory system that people begin to take control their thoughts, feelings, and actions (Bandura 1986). An integrated psychology might say it like this: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Through his ability to self-regulate, or choose, man can use his mind to regulate his external actions and the consequences of those actions. Social-Cognitive
techniques can thus be used to accomplish existential goals in a theological framework.
“An aching soul is evidence not of neurosis or spiritual immaturity, but of realism” (Crabb, 1988, pg 14). It is a reality in this world that sin has caused suffering, and that no one is immune from it. But at the same time it is also a reality that imago Dei is present in every person and that change and healing is possible. “God has endowed us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in God. This tendency has been in part overlaid or
suppressed by sin. Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same natural spontaneity that we believe in the existence of other persons, an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd”
(Platinga, 1983, pg 66).
The integration of psychology and theology makes both the psychologist and the theologian nervous in turn. But for someone who wishes to counsel integration is absolutely essential. Secular psychology alone is at a disadvantage because it is unable to see the person, the living soul, for what he or she really is; a study of the brain without a simultaneous study of the one who created it is void of healing because it lacks an understanding of the grace necessary to achieve healing. Theology without a proper understanding of psychology is also lacking, for without a proper understanding of the created beings, the study of the creator is reduced to an academic pursuit of doctrine.
A Christian counselor can not promise to heal every emotional wound that a client may bring to him, but then, he does not need to. He needs only to be faithful with what God has given him (this is no small task) and to be ready to do that which is the duty of all Christians-to manifest the love of Christ and preach the Good News in the unique way in which God, through His providence, has blessed him.
References
Adams, Jay. (1972) The big umbrella. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Ashdown, Scott. (2003) Class Lecture. Portland: Western Seminary
Bandura, Albert. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, Albert. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bobgan, Martin and Deidre. (1979) The psychological way/the spiritual way. Minneapolis: Bethany House
Breshears, Gerry. (2004) Class Lecture. Portland: Western Seminary
Butler, R., & Lewis, M. (1982). Aging and mental health: positive psychosocial and biomedical approaches (3rd ed.). St Louis: C. V. Mosby
Collins, Gary. (1988) Christian counseling: a comprehensive guide (Rev. Ed.). Dallas: Word Publishing
Crabb, Larry. (1977) Effective biblical counseling. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Crabb, Larry. (1988) Inside out. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress
Elwell, Walter A. (2001) Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
Frankl, Victor. (1963) Man’s search for meaning: an introduction to logotherapy. New York: Pocket Books
Freud, Sigmund. (1927) The future of an illusion. New York: Norton & Company (1989)
Jones, S.L., and Butman, R.E. (1991) Modern psychotherapies: a comprehensive Christian approach. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press
Kierkegaard, Soren. (1843) Either/or. New York: HarperCollins (1986)
Kierkegaard, Soren. (1844) Concept of anxiety. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1981)
Kilpatrick, William. (1983) Psychological seduction: the failure of modern psychology. Nashville: Nelson
Kistemaker, Simon J. (1997) New testament commentary: II corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
May, Rollo. (1969) Love and will. New York: Norton
May, Rollo, and Yalom, Irvin. (2000) Existential Psychotherapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies. (6th Ed.) (pp. 273-302). Itsaca, IL: F.E. Peacock
Platinga, Alvin. (1983) Reason and belief. Notre Dame: UNDpress
Sartre, J.P. (1956) Being and nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library
Sdorow, Lester M. (1990) Psychology (3rd Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers
Skinner, B.F. (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Tillich, Paul. (1952) The courage to be. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Woodward WR. (1982) The "discovery" of social behaviorism and social learning theory, 1870- 1980. American Psychologist, 37(4):396-410
Yalom, Irvin. (1981) Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books
My Philosophy of Ministry
Any personal philosophy of ministry must take into account certain elements. Among these are the basis, or source of the ministry, the nature of the one being ministered to as well as that of the minister, the goal of the ministry and challenges to that goal, and finally the pragmatic elements of how such a ministry would be carried out; all of this is done under the context of an overarching theory of ministry, a sort of thesis statement for the minister. In this case, the overarching theory is that of messianic-existentialism.
It would be helpful to define what is meant by the term “messianic-existential.” It is, in short, a personal philosophy that views humans as existential creatures who are in constant pursuit of purpose in their lives. As they search for this purpose, they struggle with four ultimate concerns, as identified by Irvin Yalom (1981). These are: death, isolation, meaninglessness, and freedom. To say that this philosophy is messianic is to say that the answer to these four concerns is found in the Messiah, and indeed the very purpose and goal of life is found there as well. The thesis of a messianic-existentialist is that Yahweh is rapt with meaning, and those created in his image are as well; the Creation has been marred by sin and that meaning is hidden-God calls some to lead the others back.
To begin with one must answer the question, who is God? Part of the answer is found in the name God chose for himself: I Am,” or more specifically, “I Am the One Who is” (Laney, 2004). The person of God is so majestic and awesome that any name that would set limits beyond the simple “I Am” is not worthy of him. The minister must first remember that this is who he works for; he does not work for an organization incorporated as a church-this is simply the region in which he works. He does not work for the people either-these are his target. He works for the eternal God who is omni-everything (just about) and who simply “is.”
There is more to be said about the person of God. He is, and this is important, the Father (Heb 12:6-11, John 6:27). Because he is the Father he will relate to people as his children, with discipline, patience, longsuffering, and joy. God has purposefully chosen to demonstrate his love in the manner of a father.
It is the Father who provides the basis for ministry because He was (and is) the first minister. He ministered to Adam and Eve after the fall, He ministered to his people as slaves in Egypt (Isa. 12:2), and He ministered to the world through His Son (John 3:16). Moreover it was the Son that the ministry of the Father is most fully modeled.
While Christ introduced the New Covenant to the people of God, his mission of redemption was not new. This was God’s plan and his ministry all along, Jesus was simply continuing what Yahweh was already doing (John 14:31). Likewise the minister is not creating anything new, he is simply carrying on the ministry of the Father as modeled by the Son (John 20:21). This is a weighty thing-carrying on the ministry of God. The minister must be sure to not minimize the authority given to him to carry on this task my Christ himself (Matt 16:19).
The nature of the ministry is such that it is less of a human task and more os a supernatural one. As the basis and the model for ministry are both found in the divine, so to is the power to carry it out. This power was first demonstrated on day one of the church when the Holy Spirit came upon God’s ministers (Acts 2:4) and it is the Holy Spirit who continues to empower God’s ministers for the supernatural task set before them (Eph 3:16).
It should not be surprising that ministry is in essence a Trinitarian function as it originated from a Trinitarian Godhead. Ministry has a fatherly element to it, and it is this fatherly element (the suffering, the patience, the discipline, the joy-all rooted in love) that is the basis. Moreover, just as the love of God was made incarnate in Christ, so to is it made incarnate again (albeit somewhat differently) through the minister, who will never be successful in starting a ministry of his own but must instead carry on the ministry of Christ. Finally, just as Christ was empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the ministry, so too are those continuing his ministry.
A fully formed philosophy of ministry must be aware of who is being ministered to. For the messianic-existentialist humans are first and foremost imago Dei. God states his intention
that man be made in His image in Genesis 1:26 and in the very next verse states that what he intended had been carried out. That the image of God remains even after the fall is made clear in Genesis 9:6 when God appeals to this fact as his reasoning against murder. Paul explicates this concept even further in 1 Corinthians 11:7 by saying that man is not only in the image of God but is also the glory of God. James appeals to imago Dei in exhorting believers to speak well to each other (James 4:4). Again, for the minister working under this philosophy this must be at the core of how one approaches his work as well as how one uses the tool of the ministry; a minister must use the tools of ministry to discover, point out, and bring forth the image of God in the individual.
The Bible does not limit its exposition of anthropology to imago Dei, but goes on to speak of the dichotomy of the human being. Jesus tells his disciples to “not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt 10:28). One can see from this verse and others like it (James 2:26, Ecc 12:7) that persons are both material and immaterial in essence. A minister must view those he works with holistically, and therefore must take into account that the person sitting in front of them is both organic and spiritual in nature. These two very real facets of the human being interact constantly, producing a unified whole that the Bible calls a living soul; the Greek word for “living soul” is psuche, from which the English word psyche is derived (Breshears, 2004). Such a term is most often used in the world of psychology, which is often frightening to those in the ministry. The two schools of thought (psychology and theology) have nothing to fear from one another though when each is used in its proper context. While psychology debates which attributes belong to the organic brain and which belong to the emotional mind, theology answers by saying that all of one’s attributes can be attributed to the psyche, the soul, the unified living person that exists as an interaction between the immaterial and material parts. The mind, which is the subject of psychology, is an expression of the somatic, spiritual person, which is the subject of theology--healing such a person is the subject of ministry.
One may at once notice that many elements traditionally considered part of the ministry seem to be left without a place in what has been presented thus far, and this is a true. Such elements are not within the scope of this philosophy for this philosophy is primarily concerned with the healing of the soul-repairing the damage done by sin and leading the individual to their purpose in life: participating fully in the life of God. The definition of a minister asserted by Gregory the Great, that of “a physician for the soul” (Purves 21) is fully embraced here.
The physician for the soul is of course first defined by the same truths that define those he ministers to; he is both material and immaterial, a living soul, created in the image of God. He is also a believer, one who has been saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). He has repented and been baptized and is filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). His mind has been renewed (Rom 12:2) and he is doing the work of sanctification with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).
Finally, a minister does not become what he is purely by choice, for who would freely choose to come under stricter judgement (James 3:1, Heb 13:17)? Rather, authority is endowed by God (Rom 13:1) and the minister is called and sent by Him (John 20:21) to shepherd (1 Peter 5:2), to serve (1 Cor 4:1) and the reconcile (2 Cor 5:20) that God’s people may participate in His life.
The goal of ministry under this philosophy, as mentioned earlier, is to bring healing to the soul. Scripture teaches how this is to take place. “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isa 53:4-5). Various interpretations about what it means to be healed in this context abound, but what can be agreed on is that at the very least Christ’s work on the cross brings spiritual healing. If the basis of suffering is spiritual, as scripture indicates it is, it stands to reason that the basis of healing will likewise be found in the spiritual. It is in bringing the individual closer and closer towards Christlikeness, towards the fruits of the Spirit and away from the influence of sin that healing can come to the psyche and the Messiah can answer the questions of existential angst.
As to the angst of death, Christ says that for the believer there is no such thing. As to isolation, while humans may never fully participate in the consciousness of one another, they can fully participate in God and rid themselves of isolation. To the overwhelming anxiety of freedom and the consequences that come with it, the Messiah offers grace, forgiveness, and a chance to start over. The final concern is likewise the most important: a sense of meaning. The author of Ecclesiastes recognized the necessity for a sense of meaning, and had trouble finding such a sense in any aspect of life. “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Ecc 1:14). Further in the book he says, “Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless” (Ecc 2:15). Because he must ultimately die and preserve nothing which he has made, because he can not share his wisdom in a more intimate way, because of the randomness of life, the author concludes in the beginning that life is meaningless. However, he does not stay with that conclusion. After deciding that the world is in God’s hands, that He has in fact set a time for everything and that His work will last forever, the author surmises that his life has meaning because “God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc 12:14).
The final assessment of the author is critical, for it is according to one’s sense of meaning that he will order his values, and it is according to his values that he will order his life. God calls the minister to reconcile the people that their sense of meaning may be restored and their values ordered according to God’s, that they may live a life that brings Him glory.
The work of ministry is the most glorious, the most important work that can be done in this world. It is the work of continuing the incarnational ministry of Christ; it is the only work whose yield lasts into eternity. Nothing glorious, nothing of eternal consequence, comes without a price. The very fact of Christ on the cross is testimony to this. From Moses to Paul, scripture is replete with stories of God’s ministers facing challenges and paying the price; Christ himself promises as much when he said, “You will be hated by all because of my Name” (Luke 21:17). Richard Baxter names the source of this hatred in saying, “If you will be leaders against Satan, he will not spare you. He bears the greatest malice against the one who is engaged in working the greatest damage against him” (Johnson, 2005).
Satan will do his best to disqualify the minister and destroy the ministry done through him; one sure attack will be temptation to sin. What the minister must realize is that it will not look like sin when he is confronted with it, for that is an enemy that is easily dealt with. As Platinga states in his book, Not the Way it’s Supposed to Be, sin is nothing more than hijacked virtue (Johnson, 2005). The temptations a minister faces will not be to vice, but to virtue. Because he is loving, Satan will send him the woman in desperate need of love. Because he is forgiving, Satan will tempt him to overlook a brother’s sin, to the detriment of the ministry. Because he is a servant, Satan will try and replace God on throne with the congregation instead.
Indeed, sometimes the very people one ministers to can become the greatest challenge. Few people outside the ministry understand the rigors of the job, and even if they do understand they are not always easy to work with. When one’s passion is seeing a heart given to Christ, one can not help but feel pain when a heart turns from him. Yet if this was the experience of the Master, then it will also be the experience for his pupil.
The minister would do well to remember that he has not been placed on the battlefield unarmed, but rather God has proved offensive weapons with which he may confront Satan’s attack (Eph 6:10-20). The minister must also remember that rewards given in a temporal world are likewise temporal, but the rewards which he must wait for, those will be eternal.
Finally, a philosophy of ministry must encompass pragmatic as well as philosophical elements. The first pragmatic element under this philosophy is that a minister must model the belief and subsequent behavior he would like to see in those he ministers to. It is a well known theory of learning that people will imitate what they see their leaders do before they will ever do what their leader say. There, as Paul exhorts his charges to model him as he models Christ (1 Cor 11:1), so to must one continuing Christ’s ministry model the Master’s behavior for those ministered to today.
A second pragmatic element of an incarnational ministry under this philosophy is that of service. The very term for minister in the New Testament, “diakonia,” implies that he is a servant. The minister carries on the tradition of Christ, who came not be served but to serve (Mark 10:45); first God (John 13) and then others, and he equips others to do the same (1 Tim 4:5).
A third element is compassion. The need for this can not be overstated if one wishes to be an instrument in the healing of souls. True compassion, as modeled by Christ, is not one that forgets wrongs but rather forgives wrongs (John 8:1-11). It is a compassion that looks through the eyes of the Advocate and not the Accuser and points people in the direction of Christ, who makes all things new.
Finally, a minister is one who has come under submission to his Master (Col 1:25-28). When the minister realizes that it is his job to glorify God and be a conduit, that it is in fact God who does the real work of ministry, then he can be free to enjoy the journey on which God is taking him, fully submitted and accepting of what his Master has planned. He need not work tirelessly to convince others that he is good, he need only let God’s goodness shine through him; nor does he need to please all those who demand something of him, for there are many, he need only please the One whom he has submitted to.
A messianic-existential view of ministry acknowledges those concerns which are normal to every human after the fall, and posits that the Messiah has answered every one of them. It views people as living souls and God as the Great Physician. The minister too, by God’s calling, is a physician of the soul, a conduit for healing. He seeks to carry on the incarnational ministry that started with the Father, was modeled by Christ, and is empowered by the Spirit.
Works Cited
Breshears, Gerry. THS 502 Class Notes. Western Seminary: 2004
Johnson, John. DMS 501 Class Notes. Western Seminary: 2005
Laney, Carl. BLS 501 Class Notes. Western Seminary: 2004
Purves, Andrew. Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville: 2001
It would be helpful to define what is meant by the term “messianic-existential.” It is, in short, a personal philosophy that views humans as existential creatures who are in constant pursuit of purpose in their lives. As they search for this purpose, they struggle with four ultimate concerns, as identified by Irvin Yalom (1981). These are: death, isolation, meaninglessness, and freedom. To say that this philosophy is messianic is to say that the answer to these four concerns is found in the Messiah, and indeed the very purpose and goal of life is found there as well. The thesis of a messianic-existentialist is that Yahweh is rapt with meaning, and those created in his image are as well; the Creation has been marred by sin and that meaning is hidden-God calls some to lead the others back.
To begin with one must answer the question, who is God? Part of the answer is found in the name God chose for himself: I Am,” or more specifically, “I Am the One Who is” (Laney, 2004). The person of God is so majestic and awesome that any name that would set limits beyond the simple “I Am” is not worthy of him. The minister must first remember that this is who he works for; he does not work for an organization incorporated as a church-this is simply the region in which he works. He does not work for the people either-these are his target. He works for the eternal God who is omni-everything (just about) and who simply “is.”
There is more to be said about the person of God. He is, and this is important, the Father (Heb 12:6-11, John 6:27). Because he is the Father he will relate to people as his children, with discipline, patience, longsuffering, and joy. God has purposefully chosen to demonstrate his love in the manner of a father.
It is the Father who provides the basis for ministry because He was (and is) the first minister. He ministered to Adam and Eve after the fall, He ministered to his people as slaves in Egypt (Isa. 12:2), and He ministered to the world through His Son (John 3:16). Moreover it was the Son that the ministry of the Father is most fully modeled.
While Christ introduced the New Covenant to the people of God, his mission of redemption was not new. This was God’s plan and his ministry all along, Jesus was simply continuing what Yahweh was already doing (John 14:31). Likewise the minister is not creating anything new, he is simply carrying on the ministry of the Father as modeled by the Son (John 20:21). This is a weighty thing-carrying on the ministry of God. The minister must be sure to not minimize the authority given to him to carry on this task my Christ himself (Matt 16:19).
The nature of the ministry is such that it is less of a human task and more os a supernatural one. As the basis and the model for ministry are both found in the divine, so to is the power to carry it out. This power was first demonstrated on day one of the church when the Holy Spirit came upon God’s ministers (Acts 2:4) and it is the Holy Spirit who continues to empower God’s ministers for the supernatural task set before them (Eph 3:16).
It should not be surprising that ministry is in essence a Trinitarian function as it originated from a Trinitarian Godhead. Ministry has a fatherly element to it, and it is this fatherly element (the suffering, the patience, the discipline, the joy-all rooted in love) that is the basis. Moreover, just as the love of God was made incarnate in Christ, so to is it made incarnate again (albeit somewhat differently) through the minister, who will never be successful in starting a ministry of his own but must instead carry on the ministry of Christ. Finally, just as Christ was empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the ministry, so too are those continuing his ministry.
A fully formed philosophy of ministry must be aware of who is being ministered to. For the messianic-existentialist humans are first and foremost imago Dei. God states his intention
that man be made in His image in Genesis 1:26 and in the very next verse states that what he intended had been carried out. That the image of God remains even after the fall is made clear in Genesis 9:6 when God appeals to this fact as his reasoning against murder. Paul explicates this concept even further in 1 Corinthians 11:7 by saying that man is not only in the image of God but is also the glory of God. James appeals to imago Dei in exhorting believers to speak well to each other (James 4:4). Again, for the minister working under this philosophy this must be at the core of how one approaches his work as well as how one uses the tool of the ministry; a minister must use the tools of ministry to discover, point out, and bring forth the image of God in the individual.
The Bible does not limit its exposition of anthropology to imago Dei, but goes on to speak of the dichotomy of the human being. Jesus tells his disciples to “not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt 10:28). One can see from this verse and others like it (James 2:26, Ecc 12:7) that persons are both material and immaterial in essence. A minister must view those he works with holistically, and therefore must take into account that the person sitting in front of them is both organic and spiritual in nature. These two very real facets of the human being interact constantly, producing a unified whole that the Bible calls a living soul; the Greek word for “living soul” is psuche, from which the English word psyche is derived (Breshears, 2004). Such a term is most often used in the world of psychology, which is often frightening to those in the ministry. The two schools of thought (psychology and theology) have nothing to fear from one another though when each is used in its proper context. While psychology debates which attributes belong to the organic brain and which belong to the emotional mind, theology answers by saying that all of one’s attributes can be attributed to the psyche, the soul, the unified living person that exists as an interaction between the immaterial and material parts. The mind, which is the subject of psychology, is an expression of the somatic, spiritual person, which is the subject of theology--healing such a person is the subject of ministry.
One may at once notice that many elements traditionally considered part of the ministry seem to be left without a place in what has been presented thus far, and this is a true. Such elements are not within the scope of this philosophy for this philosophy is primarily concerned with the healing of the soul-repairing the damage done by sin and leading the individual to their purpose in life: participating fully in the life of God. The definition of a minister asserted by Gregory the Great, that of “a physician for the soul” (Purves 21) is fully embraced here.
The physician for the soul is of course first defined by the same truths that define those he ministers to; he is both material and immaterial, a living soul, created in the image of God. He is also a believer, one who has been saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). He has repented and been baptized and is filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). His mind has been renewed (Rom 12:2) and he is doing the work of sanctification with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).
Finally, a minister does not become what he is purely by choice, for who would freely choose to come under stricter judgement (James 3:1, Heb 13:17)? Rather, authority is endowed by God (Rom 13:1) and the minister is called and sent by Him (John 20:21) to shepherd (1 Peter 5:2), to serve (1 Cor 4:1) and the reconcile (2 Cor 5:20) that God’s people may participate in His life.
The goal of ministry under this philosophy, as mentioned earlier, is to bring healing to the soul. Scripture teaches how this is to take place. “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isa 53:4-5). Various interpretations about what it means to be healed in this context abound, but what can be agreed on is that at the very least Christ’s work on the cross brings spiritual healing. If the basis of suffering is spiritual, as scripture indicates it is, it stands to reason that the basis of healing will likewise be found in the spiritual. It is in bringing the individual closer and closer towards Christlikeness, towards the fruits of the Spirit and away from the influence of sin that healing can come to the psyche and the Messiah can answer the questions of existential angst.
As to the angst of death, Christ says that for the believer there is no such thing. As to isolation, while humans may never fully participate in the consciousness of one another, they can fully participate in God and rid themselves of isolation. To the overwhelming anxiety of freedom and the consequences that come with it, the Messiah offers grace, forgiveness, and a chance to start over. The final concern is likewise the most important: a sense of meaning. The author of Ecclesiastes recognized the necessity for a sense of meaning, and had trouble finding such a sense in any aspect of life. “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Ecc 1:14). Further in the book he says, “Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless” (Ecc 2:15). Because he must ultimately die and preserve nothing which he has made, because he can not share his wisdom in a more intimate way, because of the randomness of life, the author concludes in the beginning that life is meaningless. However, he does not stay with that conclusion. After deciding that the world is in God’s hands, that He has in fact set a time for everything and that His work will last forever, the author surmises that his life has meaning because “God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc 12:14).
The final assessment of the author is critical, for it is according to one’s sense of meaning that he will order his values, and it is according to his values that he will order his life. God calls the minister to reconcile the people that their sense of meaning may be restored and their values ordered according to God’s, that they may live a life that brings Him glory.
The work of ministry is the most glorious, the most important work that can be done in this world. It is the work of continuing the incarnational ministry of Christ; it is the only work whose yield lasts into eternity. Nothing glorious, nothing of eternal consequence, comes without a price. The very fact of Christ on the cross is testimony to this. From Moses to Paul, scripture is replete with stories of God’s ministers facing challenges and paying the price; Christ himself promises as much when he said, “You will be hated by all because of my Name” (Luke 21:17). Richard Baxter names the source of this hatred in saying, “If you will be leaders against Satan, he will not spare you. He bears the greatest malice against the one who is engaged in working the greatest damage against him” (Johnson, 2005).
Satan will do his best to disqualify the minister and destroy the ministry done through him; one sure attack will be temptation to sin. What the minister must realize is that it will not look like sin when he is confronted with it, for that is an enemy that is easily dealt with. As Platinga states in his book, Not the Way it’s Supposed to Be, sin is nothing more than hijacked virtue (Johnson, 2005). The temptations a minister faces will not be to vice, but to virtue. Because he is loving, Satan will send him the woman in desperate need of love. Because he is forgiving, Satan will tempt him to overlook a brother’s sin, to the detriment of the ministry. Because he is a servant, Satan will try and replace God on throne with the congregation instead.
Indeed, sometimes the very people one ministers to can become the greatest challenge. Few people outside the ministry understand the rigors of the job, and even if they do understand they are not always easy to work with. When one’s passion is seeing a heart given to Christ, one can not help but feel pain when a heart turns from him. Yet if this was the experience of the Master, then it will also be the experience for his pupil.
The minister would do well to remember that he has not been placed on the battlefield unarmed, but rather God has proved offensive weapons with which he may confront Satan’s attack (Eph 6:10-20). The minister must also remember that rewards given in a temporal world are likewise temporal, but the rewards which he must wait for, those will be eternal.
Finally, a philosophy of ministry must encompass pragmatic as well as philosophical elements. The first pragmatic element under this philosophy is that a minister must model the belief and subsequent behavior he would like to see in those he ministers to. It is a well known theory of learning that people will imitate what they see their leaders do before they will ever do what their leader say. There, as Paul exhorts his charges to model him as he models Christ (1 Cor 11:1), so to must one continuing Christ’s ministry model the Master’s behavior for those ministered to today.
A second pragmatic element of an incarnational ministry under this philosophy is that of service. The very term for minister in the New Testament, “diakonia,” implies that he is a servant. The minister carries on the tradition of Christ, who came not be served but to serve (Mark 10:45); first God (John 13) and then others, and he equips others to do the same (1 Tim 4:5).
A third element is compassion. The need for this can not be overstated if one wishes to be an instrument in the healing of souls. True compassion, as modeled by Christ, is not one that forgets wrongs but rather forgives wrongs (John 8:1-11). It is a compassion that looks through the eyes of the Advocate and not the Accuser and points people in the direction of Christ, who makes all things new.
Finally, a minister is one who has come under submission to his Master (Col 1:25-28). When the minister realizes that it is his job to glorify God and be a conduit, that it is in fact God who does the real work of ministry, then he can be free to enjoy the journey on which God is taking him, fully submitted and accepting of what his Master has planned. He need not work tirelessly to convince others that he is good, he need only let God’s goodness shine through him; nor does he need to please all those who demand something of him, for there are many, he need only please the One whom he has submitted to.
A messianic-existential view of ministry acknowledges those concerns which are normal to every human after the fall, and posits that the Messiah has answered every one of them. It views people as living souls and God as the Great Physician. The minister too, by God’s calling, is a physician of the soul, a conduit for healing. He seeks to carry on the incarnational ministry that started with the Father, was modeled by Christ, and is empowered by the Spirit.
Works Cited
Breshears, Gerry. THS 502 Class Notes. Western Seminary: 2004
Johnson, John. DMS 501 Class Notes. Western Seminary: 2005
Laney, Carl. BLS 501 Class Notes. Western Seminary: 2004
Purves, Andrew. Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville: 2001
My Philosophy of Preaching
This is a philosophy in progress; things may change.
I am not a preacher. Such a statement is, obviously, an unexpected way to begin one’s philosophy of preaching. On the surface it has the marks of a statement of rebellion, of someone not willing to engage in a task because he thinks it too contrary or perhaps even too beneath him to engage in it; but this is not the case. Rather, it is as a result of my respect for the art of preaching and the gravity of the task that I say that in this time and in this place, God has not called me to the full time work of preaching.
Like so many things the church holds sacred, preaching has become a bit of a joke to the secular community. When one person feels the need to correct the actions of another, for example, it is often prefaced with “I don’t mean to be preachy;” or when someone is fervently told something, perhaps in the form of a scolding or a sales pitch or a lecture, it is often said that he was “preached at.” Such statements not only misconstrue the art of preaching, they also reveal the lens through which people, including those who sit in the pews, often view the preacher: as a caricature. An effective philosophy of preaching will both combat this satirical view of preaching and the preacher while also managing to avoid surrendering to “whatever their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3).
Part of the reason both the world and the church hold a low view of preaching is because often times the preachers themselves hold such a low view. David Allis, a former pastor and a church health consultant, states “There is arguably no biblical basis for preaching in churches to people who have been Christians for many years…” His reasoning for this statement is that “The sermon as traditionally practiced, in which a clergy person preaches a message to a congregation, originated from Greek, not Biblical, sources.” He goes on to say that preaching is a poor form of communication that misleads and disempowers the listener (www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue93).
How Mr. Allis comes to these conclusions is really not clear. What is clear, however, is that the Bible holds a high view of preaching and that God has ordained this as his method of choice in revealing his Word, even since the time of the Old Testament: “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). The last of the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, came preaching the Word (Matt 3:1) and Jesus stated that that was why he came (Mark 1:38). The apostle Paul stated that there was no other way for someone to hear the gospel other than to hear it preached (Romans 10:14-17); so convinced was the apostle of the importance of preaching that he stated, “For I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). It is certainly because He knows the power of preaching that God commands us who are called to ministry to preach the gospel, as Paul commands Timothy, “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim 2:4), as he himself was commanded by Christ, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to all creation” (Mark 16:15).
Moreover, the nature of the gospel is such that there is no other way, in the long run, to make it heard other than to proclaim it or preach it. The Good News that one was bound for eternal hell and has been given the opportunity to receive everlasting life in paradise with the very One who created him can not be adequately conveyed through a drama or a study group; the Good News must be conveyed in such a way that it stands toe to toe with the sinful nature of man and lays claim upon the fallen soul, renewing it and causing it to be reborn, “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). It is no wonder that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to use words like “karusso” (an authoritative and public announcement that demands compliance) and “karugma” (the phenomenon of a call that goes out and makes claim upon its hearers) to describe what the English bible translates as “preach” (Class Notes). Preaching, that is, the job of proclaiming the Gospel and demanding a response is God’s idea, not man’s; far be it from man to consider anything else more effective or of greater importance.
Having shown that the Bible holds preaching in a high regard and in turn so must we, it is incumbent upon us also that we know what preaching is. Part of that has been defined already by looking at the definition of two of the 33 different words the New Testament uses to speak to the idea of preaching. But any learned person can speak persuasively and demand a response from his hearers. The dictionary definition, “an address of a religious nature,” (Webster’s) is almost offensive in light of the importance God assigns to this task. In order to define what preaching (as the Bible understands it) is, one must first understand the various elements of it.
Preaching is, of course, communication. The prophets of the Old Testament were masters of communication, laying on the ground naked, marrying prostitutes, splashing in the water and playing with fire and so on. The preacher is given a prophetic role in the church. In addressing this very fact, John Calvin said, “By the term prophesying I do not mean the gift of foretelling the future, but as in 1 Corinthians 14:3 the science of the interpretation of Scripture, so that a prophet is the interpreter of the divine will... Let us understand prophesying to mean the interpretation of Scripture applied to the present need” (Calvin, 376).
As Calvin stated, preaching speaks to the present need. An oration on systematic theology is not preaching, nor is a speech on a political ideology preaching, for neither speak to a present need. This present need is not mysterious-the present need is Christ. It is a fallacy of false piety to order one’s priorities and put “God” or “Christ” at the top of such a list; rather it is Christ within each of the priorities that stands as the proper order of things. Likewise, it is the person of Christ within the given situation or passage that the congregants need and have come to find. The Bible recognizes this reality as well: “Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’” (John 1:45). “He is the one all the prophets testified about, saying that everyone who believes in him will have their sins forgiven through his name” (Acts 10:43). If Moses and all the prophets, individuals hugely different in time, place, and circumstance, all agreed that the Messiah was the central theme of their message then so must we; each passage may teach a different lesson, and each lesson is valuable in its power to equip and edify, but the underlying need is always Christ.
Having clearly communicated and addressed the immediate need, preaching must logically call for a response, yet so many preachers fail in this area. Rather than calling for a response the sermon becomes and end in itself; as “comfort food” serves to create greater illness in our obese population, “comfort sermons” serve to perpetuate the diseases of apathy and sin in our churches. Partaking brings comfort, but it also slowly kills. Often times, if a response is called for at all, it often begins with some version of “close your eyes” and ends with something like “now raise your hand if you did that.” This is not a response. It is, in fact, the opposite; it is a charade to help the preacher feel like he achieved something and relieve the listener of the discomfort of actually doing something.
The very first Christian sermon ever preached stands in stark contrast to this, “Peter's words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what should we do?’" (Acts 2:37). Peter’s words that day did not allow the hearers to give a “Sunday School answer,” nor were they thinking as his sermon concluded where they would be eating lunch after the service. Rather, Peter’s words demanded a response of some sort; they would either do what God was calling upon them to do or they would choose to reject Him. Their hearts were pierced, and they were left with no choice but to turn to God to heal the wound that existed there. Evangelist Billy Graham says, “The test of a preacher is that his congregation goes away saying, not, 'What a lovely sermon!' but 'I will do something'” (Myra, 250). And so the sermon, having been clearly communicated, applying the person of Christ as found with the context of the passage to the immediate need, has called for a true response that can not be ignored.
Finally, included in the definition of preaching is that it glorifies God. Such a statement may sound obvious, and yet here again so many preachers fall short. Charles Haddon Spurgeon summed up his philosophy of preaching this way: "Above all, [the preacher] must put heart work into his preaching. He must feel what he preaches. It must never be with him an easy thing to deliver a sermon. He must feel as if he could preach his very life away before the sermon is done." A sermon that has not captured the heart of the preacher cannot glorify God. Such sermon preparation goes beyond human skills and taps into the illumination of the Holy Spirit; without God’s guidance God cannot be glorified, such is the nature of humans. If God is not glorified than a Christian sermon has not been preached. Christ himself, in doing his work, said to God, “Father, bring glory to your name!” (John 12:28); let this also be the prayer of the preacher as he steps up to the pulpit.
Of course a poorly done sermon is not the only way to miss this mark. Certainly there are many very skillful preachers who plan and prepare and preach well, and yet still fail to glorify God; for examples of this just turn on the main religion channel and watch the millionaires preach. Moreover, the preacher must be careful to stay away from what could be called “attractional” sermons, those designed to entertain the audience rather than convey truth and convict of sin. Nowhere is this style more prominent than in youth ministry, and as one who works with youth I see this sin on a regular basis and have given in to it myself. Even a casual look at the current youth culture should be enough to show that the church is failing to exert influence, and the same can largely be said of the culture as a whole. Attractional sermons attract bored eyes and itching ears, but they do not attract the heart because they do not have what the heart desires.
Having shown the need for preaching and defined what preaching is, one still must decide who it is that is qualified to do the job. This is not, at least in this context, a question of gender, nor is it a question of specific calling because I have already stated that I am not called to be a preacher (thereby implying that the specific calling exists and is not mine). This philosophy of preaching must work under the greater context that Peter talks about when he addressed believers, saying, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” The question is, how does a believer know when he is ready to proclaim the truth in which he believes? More personally, how am I as one who is called to ministry to know when God is calling me to step out and step up to the public proclamation of His Word?
To begin with, God does not wait until we feel we are ready or worthy to preach, for such a time will never come. “Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ…” (Eph 3:8). The right to preach the gospel is a grace given by God, it is not earned; it is, like all abilities, a gift. But there is no reason to assume that this grace, that is, the grace to preach the gospel, is given to everyone, but rather to those who have lived a life consistent with the message they are called to preach.
This may at first appear to be inconsistent with the idea of “unearned grace,” but it is not. Striving to be worthy of the call and being worthy enough to receive the call are two very different things. This striving is commended by scripture: “I (Paul)… urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received” (Eph 4:1); and scripture is equally clear that while striving to be worthy, our ultimate worth and ability to do the work is imparted to us by God-it is in his worthiness that we find our authority to declare his word. “…we always pray for you that our God will consider you worthy of His calling, and will, by His power, fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified by you, and you by Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess 1:11-12).
Let me reiterate again that I am speaking of all who believe and obey and their ability to proclaim to the people the glory of God. There is a specific calling for those who are called to this ministry full time, as Paul says, “We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith” (Rom 12:6). When I preach, I do so not as one called to that ministry but as an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), a fellow worker in spreading the gospel (1 Thess 3:2), and a minister of God (Isa 61:6). Paul gives the final word on those who may dare to set out on such a task: “For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.” (2 Cor 2:15-17).
Most of us remember growing up and committing some sort of minor wrong against a friend, sibling, or parent and, having been thoroughly rebuked we were told to “say you’re sorry.” This is obviously not a sincere apology. When I got married we received numerous items that had no business being in anyone’s home, let alone ours, and yet I sent the giver a thank you card anyway, telling them how much I appreciated their gift. This is not a sincere act of gratitude. Sincerity demands thoughtful interaction and preparation. In the case of preaching, to means allowing oneself to be effected by the message that will be preached, it means studying, preparing, and practicing. Dr. Donald Greyhouse, a Presbyterian pastor, said, “If I had only three years to serve the Lord, I would spend two of them studying and preparing” (http://net.bible.org). (This quote is also attributed to Billy Graham). The Bible also commands preparation before attempting to do the work of God: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The grace of God did not come cheap, and cheap grace will not provide one with the blessing and the authority to proclaim the Word of God. Rather, for those servants who recognize and respond to the need to prepare, God’s grace fills the ability gap between the godly messenger and his holy message.
It stands to reason that if all that has thus been talked about comes about by the grace of God, then the authority to carry out the task likewise comes from God (Surely I can not command God to give me grace). All those who have been in the church for some time have experienced hearing a sermon that lacked sincerity. If one were to look around at those gathered he would find people distracted and fidgeting, for the insincere stating of God’s Word is, I believe, uncomfortable to the soul of the believer. Those who preach such sermons, failing in their sincerity, fail to receive the grace of God and have no authority to speak the words they speak. Without grace, they fall into the sin of relying on their own ingenuity and “the cross of Christ is emptied of its power” (1 Cor 1:17). But for those who remain under the authority of God in their preaching, they receive the blessing of knowing God in a greater way and like the saints of old they can say “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things” (1 Peter 1:12).
God does not grant his approval to just any message. Rather, the preacher must preach His (God’s) message if he is to have the authority to preach. The theme of a sermon must mirror the theme of the whole of scripture: redemption. Moreover, this redemption was finally and fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Every sermon, therefore, must be a gospel sermon. From whichever portion of scripture one chooses to preach from, the saving message of Christ on the cross must come through. “For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake” (2 Cor 4:5). We preach “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23), and “that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Why would we ever wish to preach anything other than the Good News? A sermon that has the mark of authority is one that is prepared for by the preacher and blessed by his God, focusing on his act of redemption.
Often times when making an ideological statement one must throw in a series of caveats, lest someone distort what has been said. Caveat one: The preacher is not limited to preaching from the four books of the bible we call the gospel, rather he has the freedom to preach Christ from the whole of scripture. Caveat two: The preacher is not limited to the non-offensive, in hopes that no one will leave the service early having not come forward to receive Christ. Instead, the preacher must make known the wrath of God, for without it the message of the cross is lost. Caveat three: The preacher is not free to exclude the pragmatic, theological, or historical elements of a passage (i.e. exposition) thinking that such things will distract from the message of redemption. Such things frame and highlight the message of redemption. Each preacher, having given his all to a sermon or sermons, ought to be able to say along with Paul, “I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.” (Acts 20:27).
The nature of a sermon can take many forms, depending on the context of the passage as well as the context of the listeners. Sometimes a preacher will seek to bring comfort to the people (Isa 61:1, Eph 2:17); other times he must bring rebuke (Jonah 1:2). All of this is bound up in the Good News, a message that Christ commanded to be preached (Mark 16:15). As the apostles did not hesitate to preach anything they thought might be helpful to the people (Acts 20:20), so too must those who have been given the same charge 2000 years later not hesitate in their preaching.
The courage to be bold, to not hesitate to preach what must be preached, comes from the faith that this is a God-ordained task undertaken by one with God-ordained authority to do so. Reinhold Niebuhr is often quoted has having said, “The purpose of religion (or preaching) is to afflict the comfortable and to comfort the afflicted.” This is the very essence of what Christ did in His ministry, in either case for the purpose of redemption. As those called to be His ministers we can do no less.
The task is this: “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me” (Col 1:28-29). In pursuing this task the goal is not that people are converted or that they lead more righteous lives; this is God’s area. The goal for the preacher is to remain sincere in the task. There are high stakes resting on our faithfulness to this. “When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood” (Eze 3:18). “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal 1:9). Every sermon preached impacts, for good or for bad, the soul of the listener and the soul of the preacher, even to salvation.
Part of this philosophy of preaching is that preaching itself is not enough. For the preacher, his words must be accompanied by charity. J.W. Alexander states, "He with whom the ministry is a secondary thing, may be a correct, a learned, an elegant, even an oratorical, but will never be a powerful preacher” (biblicalstudies.com). Likewise, the listener must respond. “For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith” (Heb 4:2).
As I have said, I am not a preacher; I am a counselor. My role would fit into the category that we generally label as “pastoral care.” But I must, based on my philosophy of preaching, confess that my role is secondary to that of the preacher. I cannot speak the truth of God into the life of a hurting person if they have not first heard the Word from the mouth of the preacher. “But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ” (Rom 10:14-17).
My philosophy of counseling is that the psyche of man is fallen, and that health comes as one grows closer to the image of God inside of him. My philosophy of ministry is that the minister is called to be incarnational, in a sense, to be Christ for the parishioner. In either case healing the soul (and all that entails) is never fully complete without calling upon Christ. As a pastoral counselor I am dependent on Christ for the strength to do my work and on the Holy Spirit to do the healing. In turn, I am dependent on Word, faithfully, passionately, and rightly preached.
Works Cited
Azurdia, Art. Preparing and Preaching Expository Sermons. Class Notes, Western Seminary, Portland, OR: 2006
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Tr. Ross Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960
Myra, Harold. Marshall Shelley. The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham. Zondervan: 2005
Internet:
biblicalstudies.com
http://net.bible.orgwww.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue93
I am not a preacher. Such a statement is, obviously, an unexpected way to begin one’s philosophy of preaching. On the surface it has the marks of a statement of rebellion, of someone not willing to engage in a task because he thinks it too contrary or perhaps even too beneath him to engage in it; but this is not the case. Rather, it is as a result of my respect for the art of preaching and the gravity of the task that I say that in this time and in this place, God has not called me to the full time work of preaching.
Like so many things the church holds sacred, preaching has become a bit of a joke to the secular community. When one person feels the need to correct the actions of another, for example, it is often prefaced with “I don’t mean to be preachy;” or when someone is fervently told something, perhaps in the form of a scolding or a sales pitch or a lecture, it is often said that he was “preached at.” Such statements not only misconstrue the art of preaching, they also reveal the lens through which people, including those who sit in the pews, often view the preacher: as a caricature. An effective philosophy of preaching will both combat this satirical view of preaching and the preacher while also managing to avoid surrendering to “whatever their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3).
Part of the reason both the world and the church hold a low view of preaching is because often times the preachers themselves hold such a low view. David Allis, a former pastor and a church health consultant, states “There is arguably no biblical basis for preaching in churches to people who have been Christians for many years…” His reasoning for this statement is that “The sermon as traditionally practiced, in which a clergy person preaches a message to a congregation, originated from Greek, not Biblical, sources.” He goes on to say that preaching is a poor form of communication that misleads and disempowers the listener (www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue93).
How Mr. Allis comes to these conclusions is really not clear. What is clear, however, is that the Bible holds a high view of preaching and that God has ordained this as his method of choice in revealing his Word, even since the time of the Old Testament: “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). The last of the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, came preaching the Word (Matt 3:1) and Jesus stated that that was why he came (Mark 1:38). The apostle Paul stated that there was no other way for someone to hear the gospel other than to hear it preached (Romans 10:14-17); so convinced was the apostle of the importance of preaching that he stated, “For I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). It is certainly because He knows the power of preaching that God commands us who are called to ministry to preach the gospel, as Paul commands Timothy, “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim 2:4), as he himself was commanded by Christ, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to all creation” (Mark 16:15).
Moreover, the nature of the gospel is such that there is no other way, in the long run, to make it heard other than to proclaim it or preach it. The Good News that one was bound for eternal hell and has been given the opportunity to receive everlasting life in paradise with the very One who created him can not be adequately conveyed through a drama or a study group; the Good News must be conveyed in such a way that it stands toe to toe with the sinful nature of man and lays claim upon the fallen soul, renewing it and causing it to be reborn, “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). It is no wonder that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to use words like “karusso” (an authoritative and public announcement that demands compliance) and “karugma” (the phenomenon of a call that goes out and makes claim upon its hearers) to describe what the English bible translates as “preach” (Class Notes). Preaching, that is, the job of proclaiming the Gospel and demanding a response is God’s idea, not man’s; far be it from man to consider anything else more effective or of greater importance.
Having shown that the Bible holds preaching in a high regard and in turn so must we, it is incumbent upon us also that we know what preaching is. Part of that has been defined already by looking at the definition of two of the 33 different words the New Testament uses to speak to the idea of preaching. But any learned person can speak persuasively and demand a response from his hearers. The dictionary definition, “an address of a religious nature,” (Webster’s) is almost offensive in light of the importance God assigns to this task. In order to define what preaching (as the Bible understands it) is, one must first understand the various elements of it.
Preaching is, of course, communication. The prophets of the Old Testament were masters of communication, laying on the ground naked, marrying prostitutes, splashing in the water and playing with fire and so on. The preacher is given a prophetic role in the church. In addressing this very fact, John Calvin said, “By the term prophesying I do not mean the gift of foretelling the future, but as in 1 Corinthians 14:3 the science of the interpretation of Scripture, so that a prophet is the interpreter of the divine will... Let us understand prophesying to mean the interpretation of Scripture applied to the present need” (Calvin, 376).
As Calvin stated, preaching speaks to the present need. An oration on systematic theology is not preaching, nor is a speech on a political ideology preaching, for neither speak to a present need. This present need is not mysterious-the present need is Christ. It is a fallacy of false piety to order one’s priorities and put “God” or “Christ” at the top of such a list; rather it is Christ within each of the priorities that stands as the proper order of things. Likewise, it is the person of Christ within the given situation or passage that the congregants need and have come to find. The Bible recognizes this reality as well: “Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’” (John 1:45). “He is the one all the prophets testified about, saying that everyone who believes in him will have their sins forgiven through his name” (Acts 10:43). If Moses and all the prophets, individuals hugely different in time, place, and circumstance, all agreed that the Messiah was the central theme of their message then so must we; each passage may teach a different lesson, and each lesson is valuable in its power to equip and edify, but the underlying need is always Christ.
Having clearly communicated and addressed the immediate need, preaching must logically call for a response, yet so many preachers fail in this area. Rather than calling for a response the sermon becomes and end in itself; as “comfort food” serves to create greater illness in our obese population, “comfort sermons” serve to perpetuate the diseases of apathy and sin in our churches. Partaking brings comfort, but it also slowly kills. Often times, if a response is called for at all, it often begins with some version of “close your eyes” and ends with something like “now raise your hand if you did that.” This is not a response. It is, in fact, the opposite; it is a charade to help the preacher feel like he achieved something and relieve the listener of the discomfort of actually doing something.
The very first Christian sermon ever preached stands in stark contrast to this, “Peter's words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what should we do?’" (Acts 2:37). Peter’s words that day did not allow the hearers to give a “Sunday School answer,” nor were they thinking as his sermon concluded where they would be eating lunch after the service. Rather, Peter’s words demanded a response of some sort; they would either do what God was calling upon them to do or they would choose to reject Him. Their hearts were pierced, and they were left with no choice but to turn to God to heal the wound that existed there. Evangelist Billy Graham says, “The test of a preacher is that his congregation goes away saying, not, 'What a lovely sermon!' but 'I will do something'” (Myra, 250). And so the sermon, having been clearly communicated, applying the person of Christ as found with the context of the passage to the immediate need, has called for a true response that can not be ignored.
Finally, included in the definition of preaching is that it glorifies God. Such a statement may sound obvious, and yet here again so many preachers fall short. Charles Haddon Spurgeon summed up his philosophy of preaching this way: "Above all, [the preacher] must put heart work into his preaching. He must feel what he preaches. It must never be with him an easy thing to deliver a sermon. He must feel as if he could preach his very life away before the sermon is done." A sermon that has not captured the heart of the preacher cannot glorify God. Such sermon preparation goes beyond human skills and taps into the illumination of the Holy Spirit; without God’s guidance God cannot be glorified, such is the nature of humans. If God is not glorified than a Christian sermon has not been preached. Christ himself, in doing his work, said to God, “Father, bring glory to your name!” (John 12:28); let this also be the prayer of the preacher as he steps up to the pulpit.
Of course a poorly done sermon is not the only way to miss this mark. Certainly there are many very skillful preachers who plan and prepare and preach well, and yet still fail to glorify God; for examples of this just turn on the main religion channel and watch the millionaires preach. Moreover, the preacher must be careful to stay away from what could be called “attractional” sermons, those designed to entertain the audience rather than convey truth and convict of sin. Nowhere is this style more prominent than in youth ministry, and as one who works with youth I see this sin on a regular basis and have given in to it myself. Even a casual look at the current youth culture should be enough to show that the church is failing to exert influence, and the same can largely be said of the culture as a whole. Attractional sermons attract bored eyes and itching ears, but they do not attract the heart because they do not have what the heart desires.
Having shown the need for preaching and defined what preaching is, one still must decide who it is that is qualified to do the job. This is not, at least in this context, a question of gender, nor is it a question of specific calling because I have already stated that I am not called to be a preacher (thereby implying that the specific calling exists and is not mine). This philosophy of preaching must work under the greater context that Peter talks about when he addressed believers, saying, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” The question is, how does a believer know when he is ready to proclaim the truth in which he believes? More personally, how am I as one who is called to ministry to know when God is calling me to step out and step up to the public proclamation of His Word?
To begin with, God does not wait until we feel we are ready or worthy to preach, for such a time will never come. “Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ…” (Eph 3:8). The right to preach the gospel is a grace given by God, it is not earned; it is, like all abilities, a gift. But there is no reason to assume that this grace, that is, the grace to preach the gospel, is given to everyone, but rather to those who have lived a life consistent with the message they are called to preach.
This may at first appear to be inconsistent with the idea of “unearned grace,” but it is not. Striving to be worthy of the call and being worthy enough to receive the call are two very different things. This striving is commended by scripture: “I (Paul)… urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received” (Eph 4:1); and scripture is equally clear that while striving to be worthy, our ultimate worth and ability to do the work is imparted to us by God-it is in his worthiness that we find our authority to declare his word. “…we always pray for you that our God will consider you worthy of His calling, and will, by His power, fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified by you, and you by Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess 1:11-12).
Let me reiterate again that I am speaking of all who believe and obey and their ability to proclaim to the people the glory of God. There is a specific calling for those who are called to this ministry full time, as Paul says, “We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith” (Rom 12:6). When I preach, I do so not as one called to that ministry but as an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), a fellow worker in spreading the gospel (1 Thess 3:2), and a minister of God (Isa 61:6). Paul gives the final word on those who may dare to set out on such a task: “For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.” (2 Cor 2:15-17).
Most of us remember growing up and committing some sort of minor wrong against a friend, sibling, or parent and, having been thoroughly rebuked we were told to “say you’re sorry.” This is obviously not a sincere apology. When I got married we received numerous items that had no business being in anyone’s home, let alone ours, and yet I sent the giver a thank you card anyway, telling them how much I appreciated their gift. This is not a sincere act of gratitude. Sincerity demands thoughtful interaction and preparation. In the case of preaching, to means allowing oneself to be effected by the message that will be preached, it means studying, preparing, and practicing. Dr. Donald Greyhouse, a Presbyterian pastor, said, “If I had only three years to serve the Lord, I would spend two of them studying and preparing” (http://net.bible.org). (This quote is also attributed to Billy Graham). The Bible also commands preparation before attempting to do the work of God: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The grace of God did not come cheap, and cheap grace will not provide one with the blessing and the authority to proclaim the Word of God. Rather, for those servants who recognize and respond to the need to prepare, God’s grace fills the ability gap between the godly messenger and his holy message.
It stands to reason that if all that has thus been talked about comes about by the grace of God, then the authority to carry out the task likewise comes from God (Surely I can not command God to give me grace). All those who have been in the church for some time have experienced hearing a sermon that lacked sincerity. If one were to look around at those gathered he would find people distracted and fidgeting, for the insincere stating of God’s Word is, I believe, uncomfortable to the soul of the believer. Those who preach such sermons, failing in their sincerity, fail to receive the grace of God and have no authority to speak the words they speak. Without grace, they fall into the sin of relying on their own ingenuity and “the cross of Christ is emptied of its power” (1 Cor 1:17). But for those who remain under the authority of God in their preaching, they receive the blessing of knowing God in a greater way and like the saints of old they can say “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things” (1 Peter 1:12).
God does not grant his approval to just any message. Rather, the preacher must preach His (God’s) message if he is to have the authority to preach. The theme of a sermon must mirror the theme of the whole of scripture: redemption. Moreover, this redemption was finally and fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Every sermon, therefore, must be a gospel sermon. From whichever portion of scripture one chooses to preach from, the saving message of Christ on the cross must come through. “For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake” (2 Cor 4:5). We preach “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23), and “that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Why would we ever wish to preach anything other than the Good News? A sermon that has the mark of authority is one that is prepared for by the preacher and blessed by his God, focusing on his act of redemption.
Often times when making an ideological statement one must throw in a series of caveats, lest someone distort what has been said. Caveat one: The preacher is not limited to preaching from the four books of the bible we call the gospel, rather he has the freedom to preach Christ from the whole of scripture. Caveat two: The preacher is not limited to the non-offensive, in hopes that no one will leave the service early having not come forward to receive Christ. Instead, the preacher must make known the wrath of God, for without it the message of the cross is lost. Caveat three: The preacher is not free to exclude the pragmatic, theological, or historical elements of a passage (i.e. exposition) thinking that such things will distract from the message of redemption. Such things frame and highlight the message of redemption. Each preacher, having given his all to a sermon or sermons, ought to be able to say along with Paul, “I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.” (Acts 20:27).
The nature of a sermon can take many forms, depending on the context of the passage as well as the context of the listeners. Sometimes a preacher will seek to bring comfort to the people (Isa 61:1, Eph 2:17); other times he must bring rebuke (Jonah 1:2). All of this is bound up in the Good News, a message that Christ commanded to be preached (Mark 16:15). As the apostles did not hesitate to preach anything they thought might be helpful to the people (Acts 20:20), so too must those who have been given the same charge 2000 years later not hesitate in their preaching.
The courage to be bold, to not hesitate to preach what must be preached, comes from the faith that this is a God-ordained task undertaken by one with God-ordained authority to do so. Reinhold Niebuhr is often quoted has having said, “The purpose of religion (or preaching) is to afflict the comfortable and to comfort the afflicted.” This is the very essence of what Christ did in His ministry, in either case for the purpose of redemption. As those called to be His ministers we can do no less.
The task is this: “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me” (Col 1:28-29). In pursuing this task the goal is not that people are converted or that they lead more righteous lives; this is God’s area. The goal for the preacher is to remain sincere in the task. There are high stakes resting on our faithfulness to this. “When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood” (Eze 3:18). “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal 1:9). Every sermon preached impacts, for good or for bad, the soul of the listener and the soul of the preacher, even to salvation.
Part of this philosophy of preaching is that preaching itself is not enough. For the preacher, his words must be accompanied by charity. J.W. Alexander states, "He with whom the ministry is a secondary thing, may be a correct, a learned, an elegant, even an oratorical, but will never be a powerful preacher” (biblicalstudies.com). Likewise, the listener must respond. “For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith” (Heb 4:2).
As I have said, I am not a preacher; I am a counselor. My role would fit into the category that we generally label as “pastoral care.” But I must, based on my philosophy of preaching, confess that my role is secondary to that of the preacher. I cannot speak the truth of God into the life of a hurting person if they have not first heard the Word from the mouth of the preacher. “But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ” (Rom 10:14-17).
My philosophy of counseling is that the psyche of man is fallen, and that health comes as one grows closer to the image of God inside of him. My philosophy of ministry is that the minister is called to be incarnational, in a sense, to be Christ for the parishioner. In either case healing the soul (and all that entails) is never fully complete without calling upon Christ. As a pastoral counselor I am dependent on Christ for the strength to do my work and on the Holy Spirit to do the healing. In turn, I am dependent on Word, faithfully, passionately, and rightly preached.
Works Cited
Azurdia, Art. Preparing and Preaching Expository Sermons. Class Notes, Western Seminary, Portland, OR: 2006
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Tr. Ross Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960
Myra, Harold. Marshall Shelley. The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham. Zondervan: 2005
Internet:
biblicalstudies.com
http://net.bible.orgwww.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue93
A Theology of Work
Any theology, including a theology of work, must begin as the term itself implies with a proper understanding of God. Likewise, as humans are an integral part of work, a right understanding of man is also key to an accurate theology of work. A base concept of theology proper is the sovereignty of God, from which one derives an understanding of God’s will for his life in terms of righteousness and calling. Furthermore, a spiritual take on anthropology informs one of his uniqueness and value, a concept that carries over into what one does (including his work). Anything postulated in a theology of work must be said in the context of and submit to these truths. As this paper is not the venue to defend these base principles, it will be assumed that God is sovereign and that as such He has the right and the power to govern the believer’s vocational life and that each person is uniquely gifted to contribute something of value.
The idea of work, how it is carried out and exactly who does it has changed over the generations. By and large society has moved from a hunter-gatherer work force to the Industrial Revolution and then on into the current technology age. The church’s comments on work have largely been limited to the first half of the church age; the early church taught on the benefits of work for increasing the believer’s opportunity and desire to participate in virtuous behavior. The church fathers, such as Origen, saw in one’s work a source of dignity for the worker (Vacek, 1100). During the Reformation, Luther taught that even the most “insignificant, distasteful, despised duties” could, through the Spirit, become “adorned with divine approval as the costliest gold and jewels” (Luther 39). As the nature of work became less personal and geared more and more toward accumulating wealth for the employer, the church likewise became more and more silent, until perhaps recent years, when the evangelical position can often be boiled down to “don’t steal anything and don’t forget to tithe.” Considering how much of one’s life is spent working, the church, in living its mission, is obligated to provide for believers a theology of work so that the life of Christ may be lived out in all facets of life.
What sorts of activities are covered in a theology of work? What exactly counts as work? The definition of work will vary from person to person and indeed there are subjective elements involved. A definition of work must encompass more than what one does as a job, what one does for a living. At the rudimentary level work is that which is not leisure. Whereas leisure is an exercise done for enjoyment or rest, work is an exercise, mental or physical, that is done out of necessity. Further, work is creative productivity; it is expected to produce something for the effort put in to it. This is a sacred element of human work, where the divine and the mortal come together in co-creation. Human work is redeemable, able to be sanctified by God in preparation for the coming kingdom. Finally, as God was the first to employ creative productivity, work involves the utilization and application of gifts given by God toward that same purpose.
Assuming then one’s submission to God in the area of vocation, it is proper to ask, each one as an individual, what it is God wants one to do as a profession; indeed, many people spend an inordinate amount of time wrestling with this question and searching for the signs that will inevitably provide the answer. The question again is a good and right one, but many Christians have a difficult time accepting God’s answer when He says (by way of paraphrase), “Whatever you want.” While it would be easier to have God say “I want you to be a ,” there is no indication in scripture that God does this save for a very few individuals. This is not to say that God has nothing to say about vocation, however. In fact, the writers of scripture take how one approaches work, and even the very fact that he must work in the first place very seriously: As Paul says, “If one does not work he does not eat” (2 Thess 3:10).
To begin with, there are several principles to be drawn from scripture that apply directly to one’s work. One such principle evidenced in the very nature of God is justice. Genesis 18:19 refers to justice as the “way of Yahweh.” In the New Testament, Matthew 12:18 says that Jesus was sent to proclaim justice; there are over 500 references to justice to be found in the scriptures, suggesting that the practice of it is something that God desires of His people. The allure of fraud in the workplace is great, and considering the average person spends at least one-third of his time at work, the willingness and ability to seek justice in this, the era of Enron, is as important as it ever was.
Though the link is not always obvious with the limited insight of man, justice, in God’s sight, is most perfectly expressed when intertwined with mercy (Matt 23:23); it is a trait that God desires of His people above almost all others (Matt 9:13). The word mercy often carries with it the connotation of something given that is undeserved, rather than a duty, it is a gift given that could, should one choose, hold on to. But this is a description more fitting of grace–mercy is much broader in context. Mercy manifests often times as kindness, generosity, and charity. Understood in this manner one can see that mercy is ever applicable to one’s work life, whether he is supervising his employees, serving his supervisor, or dealing with the competition.
The foundation for both these principles is humility before God, that is, a willingness to remain faithful and submit to what God requires of the believer in all facets of his life, including his vocation. “He has showed you, O man, what is good, and what Yahweh requires of you: To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).
The vocational life of a believer can not be compartmentalized apart from the rest of a life lived by faith, especially in a culture where one of the first questions asked after meeting someone is “What do you do?” One’s identity is so inexorably linked to one’s profession that if one chooses to be known as a Christian, if one chooses to live a life of testimony and witness to the gospel, he must examine what role his convictions play in the way he does his work, thus the importance of justice, mercy, and faithfulness in the workplace. Further, it is in living these principles that one can be sure he is within the will of God, whatever profession he chooses, and thus can find confidence without seeking signs that he is in the right job.
The scriptures do have some specifics regarding work. One of the first things one notices in examining these scriptures is that the current culture places value in what, according to God’s economy, is trivial. As mentioned, one’s identity is largely based in one’s vocation and this culture is one that measures success in terms of dollars. But scripture does not support this distorted view of work. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that one’s work, absent the grace of God, will provide nothing (Luke 12:27). Moreover, while the current culture, with cell phones, laptop computers, and now the combination of the two, coupled with the statistical fact of diminishing vacation days and time with the family, elevates work to a high priority. Scripture calls for it to be done in moderation; God calls on His people rest (Exodus 20:9-10). Finally, the scriptures call on believers to keep the main focus of their energy somewhere else, not on “perishable things,” but rather on seeking “the eternal life that the Son of Man can give you” (John 6:27).
This is not to say that the scriptures do not hold a high view of work. On the contrary, work done in the proper context and with the proper mindset is considered honorable and valuable and it is appreciated by God. Perhaps one of the reasons the apostle Paul called on Christ followers to refrain from laziness (Rom 12:11) and to earn their keep (2 Thess 3:10) is because he understood the great amount of care God put in to giving us the ability to work in the first place. Not only does God provide each individual with his own skill (Exodus 35:35), He values and appreciates the application of that skill. By implication, he is disappointed when His people fail to use their skills that He has given them (Exodus 28). A job well done is one of the few areas in life where the believer is able and called upon to please both God and man, and he is entitled to a just compensation for doing so (Gen 29:15) and will be likewise blessed by God for his efforts (Deut 15:10).
One thing work in the technology age has demonstrated is that mankind is linked closer together now more than ever before; even the most simple of jobs may have, to one degree or another, a global impact. Rarely in buying a diamond does one think of the individual in Africa who dug it from the ground. The migrant farm worker is rarely prayed for as one says grace over their lunch. Many professions are geared primarily for the upper class, since they are the only ones that can pay for the services and those that enter those professions are likewise primarily from the upper class, as they are the only ones who can afford to train for it. It behooves the believer to not only consider the moral and theological dimensions surrounding his own work life, but that of others and what part he plays in it as a consumer.
It has been suggested already that there is a sacred nature to work, should the worker allow there to be, and yet it goes even further than that. One’s work can become one’s calling, when certain elements become a part of the job. First, to have a calling implies that there is a caller, one must acknowledge the presence of God in his work. Second, with a calling there is a sense of urgency. Witness for example the prophets, who were called to begin (or at least begin training for) their work immediately. Witness also the ministers of the early church, who set about their work with such urgency that the gospel soon spread around the world. Third, a calling carries with it an equipping. It may come as natural ability or it may manifest as the ability and desire to learn the necessary skills. Finally, and most importantly, a calling changes the relationship between the caller and the called and they work conjointly to reach the goal of the call (Miller 2005). The work of one’s calling extends well beyond the temporal to the eschatological elements present in human work, leading “the present world of work towards the promised and hoped for transformation” (Volf 83). Human work finds its ultimate meaning when placed within the broader perspective of God’s purposes within Creation. As mentioned previously, man participates with God in co-creation when he labors in the context of faith, providing the building blocks for the coming kingdom.
One’s spiritual and vocational lives are intricately braided together into a holistic synergy, affecting not only each other but also all areas of one’s life. The leaders within the church, be they clergy or counselor, must make it their business to understand this and teach it to those given over to their care.
Works Cited
Luther, Martin. The Estate of Marriage (1522) in “Luther’s Works vol 45. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg
Miller, David. “Living Out Our Callings in the Workplace,” at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 5, 2005
Vacek, Edward. “Work”, The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph Komonchak (1990) Collegeville: Liturgical PressVolf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit. (2001) Wipf & Stock Publishers
The idea of work, how it is carried out and exactly who does it has changed over the generations. By and large society has moved from a hunter-gatherer work force to the Industrial Revolution and then on into the current technology age. The church’s comments on work have largely been limited to the first half of the church age; the early church taught on the benefits of work for increasing the believer’s opportunity and desire to participate in virtuous behavior. The church fathers, such as Origen, saw in one’s work a source of dignity for the worker (Vacek, 1100). During the Reformation, Luther taught that even the most “insignificant, distasteful, despised duties” could, through the Spirit, become “adorned with divine approval as the costliest gold and jewels” (Luther 39). As the nature of work became less personal and geared more and more toward accumulating wealth for the employer, the church likewise became more and more silent, until perhaps recent years, when the evangelical position can often be boiled down to “don’t steal anything and don’t forget to tithe.” Considering how much of one’s life is spent working, the church, in living its mission, is obligated to provide for believers a theology of work so that the life of Christ may be lived out in all facets of life.
What sorts of activities are covered in a theology of work? What exactly counts as work? The definition of work will vary from person to person and indeed there are subjective elements involved. A definition of work must encompass more than what one does as a job, what one does for a living. At the rudimentary level work is that which is not leisure. Whereas leisure is an exercise done for enjoyment or rest, work is an exercise, mental or physical, that is done out of necessity. Further, work is creative productivity; it is expected to produce something for the effort put in to it. This is a sacred element of human work, where the divine and the mortal come together in co-creation. Human work is redeemable, able to be sanctified by God in preparation for the coming kingdom. Finally, as God was the first to employ creative productivity, work involves the utilization and application of gifts given by God toward that same purpose.
Assuming then one’s submission to God in the area of vocation, it is proper to ask, each one as an individual, what it is God wants one to do as a profession; indeed, many people spend an inordinate amount of time wrestling with this question and searching for the signs that will inevitably provide the answer. The question again is a good and right one, but many Christians have a difficult time accepting God’s answer when He says (by way of paraphrase), “Whatever you want.” While it would be easier to have God say “I want you to be a ,” there is no indication in scripture that God does this save for a very few individuals. This is not to say that God has nothing to say about vocation, however. In fact, the writers of scripture take how one approaches work, and even the very fact that he must work in the first place very seriously: As Paul says, “If one does not work he does not eat” (2 Thess 3:10).
To begin with, there are several principles to be drawn from scripture that apply directly to one’s work. One such principle evidenced in the very nature of God is justice. Genesis 18:19 refers to justice as the “way of Yahweh.” In the New Testament, Matthew 12:18 says that Jesus was sent to proclaim justice; there are over 500 references to justice to be found in the scriptures, suggesting that the practice of it is something that God desires of His people. The allure of fraud in the workplace is great, and considering the average person spends at least one-third of his time at work, the willingness and ability to seek justice in this, the era of Enron, is as important as it ever was.
Though the link is not always obvious with the limited insight of man, justice, in God’s sight, is most perfectly expressed when intertwined with mercy (Matt 23:23); it is a trait that God desires of His people above almost all others (Matt 9:13). The word mercy often carries with it the connotation of something given that is undeserved, rather than a duty, it is a gift given that could, should one choose, hold on to. But this is a description more fitting of grace–mercy is much broader in context. Mercy manifests often times as kindness, generosity, and charity. Understood in this manner one can see that mercy is ever applicable to one’s work life, whether he is supervising his employees, serving his supervisor, or dealing with the competition.
The foundation for both these principles is humility before God, that is, a willingness to remain faithful and submit to what God requires of the believer in all facets of his life, including his vocation. “He has showed you, O man, what is good, and what Yahweh requires of you: To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).
The vocational life of a believer can not be compartmentalized apart from the rest of a life lived by faith, especially in a culture where one of the first questions asked after meeting someone is “What do you do?” One’s identity is so inexorably linked to one’s profession that if one chooses to be known as a Christian, if one chooses to live a life of testimony and witness to the gospel, he must examine what role his convictions play in the way he does his work, thus the importance of justice, mercy, and faithfulness in the workplace. Further, it is in living these principles that one can be sure he is within the will of God, whatever profession he chooses, and thus can find confidence without seeking signs that he is in the right job.
The scriptures do have some specifics regarding work. One of the first things one notices in examining these scriptures is that the current culture places value in what, according to God’s economy, is trivial. As mentioned, one’s identity is largely based in one’s vocation and this culture is one that measures success in terms of dollars. But scripture does not support this distorted view of work. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that one’s work, absent the grace of God, will provide nothing (Luke 12:27). Moreover, while the current culture, with cell phones, laptop computers, and now the combination of the two, coupled with the statistical fact of diminishing vacation days and time with the family, elevates work to a high priority. Scripture calls for it to be done in moderation; God calls on His people rest (Exodus 20:9-10). Finally, the scriptures call on believers to keep the main focus of their energy somewhere else, not on “perishable things,” but rather on seeking “the eternal life that the Son of Man can give you” (John 6:27).
This is not to say that the scriptures do not hold a high view of work. On the contrary, work done in the proper context and with the proper mindset is considered honorable and valuable and it is appreciated by God. Perhaps one of the reasons the apostle Paul called on Christ followers to refrain from laziness (Rom 12:11) and to earn their keep (2 Thess 3:10) is because he understood the great amount of care God put in to giving us the ability to work in the first place. Not only does God provide each individual with his own skill (Exodus 35:35), He values and appreciates the application of that skill. By implication, he is disappointed when His people fail to use their skills that He has given them (Exodus 28). A job well done is one of the few areas in life where the believer is able and called upon to please both God and man, and he is entitled to a just compensation for doing so (Gen 29:15) and will be likewise blessed by God for his efforts (Deut 15:10).
One thing work in the technology age has demonstrated is that mankind is linked closer together now more than ever before; even the most simple of jobs may have, to one degree or another, a global impact. Rarely in buying a diamond does one think of the individual in Africa who dug it from the ground. The migrant farm worker is rarely prayed for as one says grace over their lunch. Many professions are geared primarily for the upper class, since they are the only ones that can pay for the services and those that enter those professions are likewise primarily from the upper class, as they are the only ones who can afford to train for it. It behooves the believer to not only consider the moral and theological dimensions surrounding his own work life, but that of others and what part he plays in it as a consumer.
It has been suggested already that there is a sacred nature to work, should the worker allow there to be, and yet it goes even further than that. One’s work can become one’s calling, when certain elements become a part of the job. First, to have a calling implies that there is a caller, one must acknowledge the presence of God in his work. Second, with a calling there is a sense of urgency. Witness for example the prophets, who were called to begin (or at least begin training for) their work immediately. Witness also the ministers of the early church, who set about their work with such urgency that the gospel soon spread around the world. Third, a calling carries with it an equipping. It may come as natural ability or it may manifest as the ability and desire to learn the necessary skills. Finally, and most importantly, a calling changes the relationship between the caller and the called and they work conjointly to reach the goal of the call (Miller 2005). The work of one’s calling extends well beyond the temporal to the eschatological elements present in human work, leading “the present world of work towards the promised and hoped for transformation” (Volf 83). Human work finds its ultimate meaning when placed within the broader perspective of God’s purposes within Creation. As mentioned previously, man participates with God in co-creation when he labors in the context of faith, providing the building blocks for the coming kingdom.
One’s spiritual and vocational lives are intricately braided together into a holistic synergy, affecting not only each other but also all areas of one’s life. The leaders within the church, be they clergy or counselor, must make it their business to understand this and teach it to those given over to their care.
Works Cited
Luther, Martin. The Estate of Marriage (1522) in “Luther’s Works vol 45. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg
Miller, David. “Living Out Our Callings in the Workplace,” at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 5, 2005
Vacek, Edward. “Work”, The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph Komonchak (1990) Collegeville: Liturgical PressVolf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit. (2001) Wipf & Stock Publishers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
