Theology of the Four Gospels

 

            One of the greatest gifts given to humanity is free will and this can be argued back and forth for sure but that is not what this paper is about.  Free will in this context is every individual’s right to reason and develop their own scope of understanding.  This is often called having a perspective on a subject or situation and it is woven into our DNA from birth.  This is not to say that we cannot agree on a matter but rather the path we take to our agreement may be very different depending on our individual experience or understanding.  The Gospel story is no different and we are given four different perspectives on the same story.  The four Gospels share a commonality in the person of Jesus who is the Christ and while three of the four stories are titled synoptic each write their account through the lens of their own perspective.

            While the first three Gospel accounts are synoptic, meaning from a similar point of view and are similar in structure, they are by no means identical.  Like a snowflake no human is exactly alike either and this appears to be by design.  “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12).  Should we venture to reason this passage out just a bit further we could ask ourselves if this is how it is with Christ could it then be how it is with Christ’s Gospel?  Unity and diversity the mystery and amazement of the Christian faith is at the foundation for gaining understanding into the Bible itself.

            With this understating in place we can begin to see that synoptic can only mean what it was intended to and that is similar but not the same.  “In a well-known beatitude, Jesus, according to Matthew, pronounces a blessing on ‘the poor in spirit’ (5:3); according to Luke, on the ‘poor’ (6:20)” (Carson & Moo, 2005, p. 107).  How do you mess up the Sermon on the Mount?  The world’s greatest sermon delivered by the Son of God and then misquoted by those He entrusted the story to?  This is one of the prime examples given in the Scriptures as to why proper context is vitally important and it is also a lesson in diversity merging with unity.

            Two Apostles writing about the same sermon in the same location clearly understood the meaning of the lesson independently.  To find a context to base this off of in the world today we need look no further that our political landscape.  Both political parties, Democrats and Republicans are citizens of the same country and pledge their allegiance to the same flag but have very different ideas on how to pursue that allegiance.  Luke was not a full Jew and this could lead him to think differently than the traditional Hebrew might with their strong emphasis on tradition.  Matthew was indeed a Hebrew and held strongly to the teaching of the past, namely the Law and Old Testament.

            This still leaves us with another Gospel, one that is not synoptic but squarely different from the others.  The common denominator remains the same but since it is different from the other accounts it also carries with it a different theological message as well.  While there are indeed overlapping stories in the Gospel according to John he also introduces a uniquely different perspective on Jesus, specifically on His divinity.  “Finally John reveals Jesus as the One sent by God the Father into the world to be its Saviour.  As the Son he has his Father’s authority, living in close communion with him” (Zondervan, 2009, p. 543).  While a traditional perspective was given by Matthew and a social reform mindset by Luke, John was affected greatly by the understanding that God was among them.

            If four individuals could write about and experience the same Jesus what does that mean for all of us today?  Can we make our own Jesus and then simply call it perspective?  Not at all and this is where unity through diversity becomes so important.  These men were not changing the Gospel story but each was affected by the Messiah differently and this is to be expected.  Just ask any group of individuals to describe who Jesus is and the value of perspective will come to the surface quickly.  One may say He was the most effective preacher of all time; others identify with Jesus as the Great Shepherd who never leaves the flock; some may mention the overturning of tables and making a whip from cords as Jesus being the revolutionary he truly was. 

            This leaves us with the question of which of these Jesus’ is the real Jesus?  Scripture can be used to defend any of these portraits of Christ mentioned above.  It is at this point we can appreciate the value of perspective and just how the Gospels today can help us all.  Another Apostle that carried yet another perspective was able to understand the Gospels in such a way that led him to want to

relate the Christ to anyone in any circumstance.  “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:22-23).  For the sake of the Gospel message Paul attempts to connect to others wherever they may be because he understands that while there is but One God there are so many of us and we are all affected uniquely by the love of God. 

            In the end the four messages recorded in the Bible as the Gospels give us a glimpse at the unity of God’s message of love to us and displays the diversity of mankind in accepting His love.  Today, many are turned away from the message of Jesus because they do not fit the mold of our perception of the Christ.  We have been warned about this as it began early on in the church: “What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)?  The four Gospels share a commonality in the person of Jesus who is the Christ and while three of the four stories are titled synoptic each write their account through the lens of their own perspective. 

References:

Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

NIV Study Bible. (2011). Rapid Falls, MI: Zondervan.

Zondervan. (2009). Handbook to the Bible, 4th Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

 

 

 

 

 

Intertestamental Period

Perhaps the 400 years of silence should be interpreted as prophetic silence because this was not a quiet time.  There was a plan being executed that was preparing us all for the arrival of the Messiah during this time.

A Brief Summary

In the beginning of this journey on the road through the New Testament, it is important to recognize several things. First, the writers of the New Testament did not live in a vacuum. There was a cultural, political, and religious milieu surrounding those who wrote the New Testament. Second, what is important to remember is the history of the Jewish people. Jesus was born into a Jewish family; He was raised in a Jewish culture and society. It is not necessary (for this course) to know the entire history of the Jewish people; it is only necessary to explore the centuries immediately preceding the first century AD, the Intertestamental Period. Religious history (e.g., the Jewish religion itself) is one of the most important areas to consider when studying the New Testament; students will also explore the historical and political background when studying the book of Acts.

Religious Background

The last of the Old Testament prophets lived 400 years or more before John the Baptist appeared. Since that time, the Jewish religion has not stood still. The classical religion of the Old Testament became Judaism.

The Temple

The simple temple built by the Jews who returned to Jerusalem after the exile had been replaced by a magnificent structure commissioned by Herod the Great (40-4 B.C.). It was begun in 19 B.C.; it was still not complete in the time of Jesus (New International Version, John 2:20) and was not finished until 64 A.D., six years before it was destroyed by the Romans. It was this imposing complex of buildings in huge cream-colored stones, marble, and gold that evoked the admiration of Jesus' disciples (Mark 13:1). Here the age-old ritual of sacrifice and worship continued with its elaborate establishment of priests and temple servants, though all under the watchful eye of the Roman garrison in the fortress of Antonia, which overlooked its courts (Acts 21:31). Here too, in the Court of the Gentiles (beyond which no Gentile dared to go [Acts 21:28-29; Eph. 2:14]) was the thriving sale of sacrificial animals and sacred money for the temple offerings−this market was the object of Jesus' anger in Matt. 21:12-13.

The Synagogue

There was only one temple, but each community had a synagogue. There was no sacrificial ritual here; rather, it was the local center for worship and study of the law. On the Sabbath day, the community would meet (men and women seated apart) to listen to the reading and exposition of the set passages from the Law and the Prophets (Luke 4:16) and to join in the set liturgical prayers. But the synagogue was more than a place of worship. It was the local school, the community center, and the center of local government. Its elders were the civil authorities of the community−the magistrates and guardians of public morals.

The Law and the Traditions

Israel had the Law since the days of Moses, but from the time of Ezra (5th century B.C. following the exile in Babylon, which the prophets saw as a direct result of the nation's disobedience to the law) greater emphasis was placed on the study of the law until the Jews had become "the people of the book." This intensive study resulted in an increasing body of traditions that came to be regarded as no less binding than the law itself. Scribes, professional students, and exponents of the law and traditions were needed to prescribe exact regulations for every occasion. For example, there were 39 types of action prohibited on the Sabbath (Shabbat), including reaping and threshing (plucking ears of corn and rubbing the grain out in the hands [Luke 6:1-2]) and traveling more than a "Sabbath day's journey" (Acts 1:12), or approximately two thirds of a mile. In their meticulous care over details of tradition, the scribes sometimes forgot the more fundamental concerns of the law itself (Mark 7:1-13, 3:4-5; Matt. 23:23).

Parties, Sects, and Movements in Judaism

The Pharisees

Pharisees were the religious purists. They were members of the party that grew from the 2^nd-century Hasidim ("God's Loyal Ones") and concentrated on control of religious rather than political affairs. Their supreme concern was to keep the law (including the traditions) in every exact detail; most scribes belonged to the Pharisaic party. Judged by this standard, they were model Jews (Phil. 3:5-6); to this end, they kept themselves as far as possible apart from non-Pharisees. They would not eat with a non-Pharisee in case the food had not been tithed (i.e., one tenth given to God). Inevitably, this policy of separation led to disdain for all lesser mortals, a holier-than-thou attitude that has made the term "Pharisee" one of reproach even today.

Combined with a dry legalism, which put exact ritual observance before love and mercy, this arrogance led them into conflict with Jesus. He did not dispute their orthodoxy, but the proud and unloving way in which they upheld it. The influence of the Pharisees was out of proportion to their numbers, which were not very large. The Pharisees laid down the lines along which Judaism developed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They ensured a continued emphasis on individual piety and strict ethical standards, as well as their better-known rigid legalism. They were respected, if not loved, by other Jews.

The Sadducees

The Sadducees were members of the other main sect of Judaism at the time of Jesus, though they were already declining in influence. The sect consisted largely of the rich land-owning class who in earlier days, by shrewd manipulation of political advantage, had secured a dominant position. They still controlled a roughly equal proportion of the seats in the Sanhedrin (the Jewish supreme council) with the Pharisees (Acts 23:6-10). Many of the chief priests either were Sadducees or worked closely with them. Their religious position was conservative, to the extent of refusing to accept any revelation beyond the Five Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy). They thus rejected more recent religious ideas, such as the belief in immortality, resurrection, angels, and demons, which were fostered by the Pharisees (Mark 12:18; Acts 23:8). As an aristocratic minority, they enjoyed little popular support.

The Essenes

This group has come dramatically to light with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls since 1947. These scrolls are from the library of the Qumran Community, a monastic sect living in isolation in the barren desert near the shores of the Dead Sea. The sect was founded by the otherwise unknown "Teacher of Righteousness," probably around 165 B.C., and survived until 68 A.D., when it was destroyed by the Romans during the Jewish revolt. The Essenes regarded themselves as the true people of God, and all others−including the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem−as His enemies. They were the "Sons of Light" and they lived for the day when in the final battle against the "Sons of Darkness" they would be given the victory and dominion. Meanwhile they kept to themselves, occupied in the diligent study of Scripture, bound by a strict monastic discipline, loving one another. They produced biblical commentaries, applying every phrase of the Old Testament passages to their own situation and expectations. They looked forward to the coming of two Messiahs, of Aaron (priestly), and of Israel (royal)−or possibly one Messiah combining both roles. The Qumran documents are important not so much for producing details surrounding the sect itself, but for giving evidence of the existence of an ascetic, apocalyptic strain in Judaism far removed from the Jerusalem establishment that might have been more widespread than this single isolated group. Scholars who before 1947 were tempted to think of Pharisees and Sadducees as fully constituting "the Jews," must now recognize that the situation was not so simple.

The Zealots

While Pharisees and Sadducees tried to make the best of Roman rule and the men of Qumran dreamed of the mighty intervention of God to deliver them, many Jews sought salvation more actively. The Zealots, as they later came to be called, were the freedom fighters, the revolutionaries of the Jewish people. They eventually sparked off the great rebellion that led to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. By the time of Jesus, various revolts had already occurred (Acts 5:36-37) and the people were ripe for revolution. Intensely patriotic, the Zealots founded their appeal on the belief that subjection to Rome was treason to God, the true King of Israel. At least one of the apostles was a former Zealot.

Messianic Hopes

The extravagant visions of the apocalypses were among the many hopes being cherished by the Jews. Many messianic figures from the Old Testament had taken firm root in popular expectation: the prophet-like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19); the returning Elijah (Mal. 4:5-6); and, above all, the Son of David, a great king and warrior, whose mission it would be to bring victory, peace, and glory to Israel. Some saw a place for the Gentiles in this hope, while others were exclusively nationalistic. Some thought of spiritual restoration, most of victory over the Romans. To utter the word Messiah (which means "Christ" in Greek) would inevitably stir up hopes of political independence, so it is no wonder that Jesus was cautious in letting others call him "Christ." He came to a people who, even if they were not quite agreed regarding what they were hoping for, were united in eagerly "looking for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25), but none expected it to come by way of a cross.

The Diaspora

At least since the exile in the 6th century B.C., Jews began to scatter around the world of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean, so that by the 1^st century A.D. there were 1 million Jews in Egypt alone. In Alexandria, Jews made up a considerable part of the population, and in most of the main cities, a Jewish colony with its own synagogue (or at least a place for prayer) might be found (Acts 16:13). These are the Jews of the Dispersion (Greek, Diaspora), sometimes referred to inaccurately as the Hellenistic Jews. Hellenism, the wave of Greek culture and ideas that had rolled over the Mediterranean world and far beyond with the conquests of Alexander the Great, was still the dominant strand in the culture of the Roman Empire. These Jews, dispersed away from the more conservative atmosphere of Palestine, adapted more readily to the Greek way of life. They did not necessarily abandon their distinctive religion and culture, and cease to be Jews, but they were more willing to learn from and enter into dialogue with Greek ideas. Many of the later Jewish writings, particularly those from Alexandria (e.g., the Wisdom of Solomon, or the writings of Philo) are deeply influenced by Greek philosophy. Apollos, the learned Jew from Alexandria (Acts 18:24), no doubt belonged to this school before his gradual conversion to Christ.

The Proselytes

The Jews are often unjustly charged with a rigid exclusivism. In fact, particularly during the Dispersion, many Jews recognized their mission to the Gentiles and there was a sincere attempt to win converts. To accept the Jewish religion was no light matter for a Gentile. He must accept circumcision and baptism, and agree to keep the whole Law of Moses, including such ritual prescriptions as keeping the Sabbath and the laws about unclean food−he must in fact renounce his own nationality. There were a considerable number who took this drastic step, and it is to them that the term proselyte applies. Many more were attracted by the monotheistic faith and the strict morality of Judaism in contrast with the polytheism of Rome. They were prepared to identify themselves with the faith and ideals of the Jews, but stopped short of the full commitment of the proselyte. These fellow-travelers, many of them rich and influential officials, are known in the New Testament as "those who fear God" or "the devout" (Acts 13:26, 43, 50; 17:4).

The Samaritans

The Samaritans were descendants of the surviving Israelites of the northern kingdom who intermarried with the newly imported alien population after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. They never effectively made common cause with Judah, and in the time of Nehemiah the rift was apparently irreparable. The building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem (John 4:20), set the seal on the Jewish rejection of this heretical sect. It was the Jewish king Hyrcanus who destroyed the Samaritan temple in 128 B.C., Yet the Samaritans worshipped God as the Jews did−their authority was the Five Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy, but not the rest of the Old Testament), hardly altered from the Jewish version. Like many of the Jews, they awaited a Messiah.

Conclusion

The Judaism of the 1st and 2nd century B.C. was very diverse and fragmented into a number of sects, which included, in a religious sense, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes as well as a number of groups who had broken away from the Jewish polity. Each found their own niche; for example, the Sadducees were largely associated with the temple in Jerusalem, whereas the Pharisees were associated with the countryside, including Galilee. Also, substantial Greek influence had entered the Jewish homeland after the conquest of Alexander. Much of the ministry of Jesus was devoted to identifying and establishing the true Judaism and the true worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in this spiritual and cultural milieu.

Piece of the Pie

Piece of the Pie

There are moments in life when one truly believes that we have stumbled on to something life-changing or at least worthy of further study. While some of these moments begin as life changing revelations they are later classified as essentially meaningless. Others start out as nothing more than a side note but are later gathered with other side notes and become the kind of discoveries that take our faith to a higher planes. This particular thought started out as a curiosity that has since been fueled by additional theology, contemplation, and prayer. 

In one of my former seminary courses, Cross-Culture Christian Leadership, I was given the opportunity to get familiar with the Pentecostal movement. Fire From Heaven, written by Harvey Cox, a professor at the Harvard Divinity School is one of the texts. It was shocking to me that the author was a Harvard man and that I was learning about the most charismatic denomination from the Ivy Leagues.  Why is someone from Harvard writing about the Pentecostal movement? This was my first reaction to the text but later it birthed a desire to study out the other charismatic movements in the US.  

Having studied and written about all of the major denominational fellowships as well as the major world religions my mind was racing because it was the local church community that captured my curiosity again. A denomination is simply a piece removed from a whole and the United States is filled with them. Trying to recount how this began is really eye-opening, as the first reformers, aside from the Great Schism, did not set out to build a new movement. Martin Luther is of course a prime example as he wanted to bring the Word of God back to the Catholic or Universal church. John Calvin made his mark by reaching out to the poor and preaching the Word of God outside the Church building, which was not allowed by the clergy of his time. Both men set out to bring God back to the people not to glorify themselves by heading up the next mega-Church. 

Let me be clear and state that I have no problem or concern with different fellowships within a community. That being said, there would be no reason to write this if I did not see problems in other areas of denominationalism. The United States has perfected the craft of starting new churches and there is no end to that model in sight. That is not a bad thing in it of itself. Religious freedom is a catalyst that can either ignite real reform or turn the church into no more than a lucrative business.  How is this done?  My experiences have led be to believe it begins with a gift from God that ultimately was intended to unify God’s people but instead has been manipulated to scatter the herd, so to speak.  Remember Satan masquerades as an Angel of Light and not as a blood-thirsty vampire.

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-13).

These different roles in the church were designed to unify but have gone their own way and begun their own fellowship.  After all, when there are men of impact around us the natural tendency is to follow them. "What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ'” (1 Corinthians 1:12) Different men with these different gifts are easy to follow as their perspective sound fresh and perhaps even original because their ideals have been separated into different categories instead of being gathered as a whole. For example, the fellowship where I came to know Christ is extremely familiar with Jesus the Evangelist: In fact, we just might be the most connected fellowship to this side of Christ than any other (In your face Baptists). It is also commonplace within my fellowship to ask the question, “What happened to Steve I have not seen him in awhile?” The answer is usually a very matter-of-fact and frankly cold statement, “Steve left a long time ago… He’s gone.” While we are quite familiar with Jesus’ mission to seek and save what was lost and make disciples of all nations we are unfamiliar with Jesus the Shepherd or Pastor. We have a shallow relationship with the Good Shepherd, who would willingly leave the ninety-nine that are doing well to search and rescue the one sheep gone astray (We just might be the worse at this).

Other movements are extremely family oriented and while they excel in shepherding they lack in the area of evangelism. These gifts were intended to work together for the good of a much greater cause than those gifted individuals. I have been secretly attending a Sunday service at the Mainline Church of Christ in town and have come to understand that this fellowship knows Jesus the Teacher very well. The Messiah who took the time to teach deep lessons on the side of a mountain and was able to breathe life into the Old Testament. These sermons from the pulpit seem to have no agenda other than preaching what is there with no title and no points… Is that even allowed?! Some are indeed at the forefront of knowing Jesus the healer. Often this (in fundamentalism and orthodoxy) is dismissed as the stepchild faction of Christianity... labeled as the Holy Rollers or the demon chasers. In fact, most of these movements associate demon possession with addiction and are focused on recovery through submission to the Son of God.

So which one is right? If we are careful to notice the original purpose of these roles they are intended by God to build up His people until we all reach unity in the faith. Is that possible attending one comfortable church practice or more biblically stated knowing only one side of Jesus? What is the fullness of Christ and can it be attained through a single denominational experience? There is a buffet of easy objections to this line of reasoning but I have found that grace, maturity and freedom have the ability to trump them all.  

The Hermeneutic Puzzle

After having one mind melting experience after the next I decided to blog one of these experiences so that I might one day reflect on it and think, “Truly, I knew nothing the day I wrote that.”  “Hermeneutics is the science and methodology of adding teeth to exegesis” (Moghadam, 2012).  I say this because I truly enjoy exegetical study where I am able to allow the text to be the text and simply read the Bible, not attempting to add or remove from it… this is a true joy of mine.  It has come to my attention however, that while this is an excellent way to allow oneself to be enriched and even molded by the Spirit of God it does not allow for the Berean “of more noble character” development.  There is much to be considered when attempting to use proper hermeneutics in your bible study.  There are many factors to consider like culture, where the book was written, who wrote the book and what does that imply, to whom the book was being written to and what does this imply, etc…

I am going to give a small scale demonstration here on a passage that I believe (OPINION) has been grossly mishandled.  If you would like to follow along I would suggest reading 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 first and naturally the book in its entirety after that.  For the point of this example I will not talk about the emotions that Paul may or may not have felt but will stay right on track with my possible future thesis that leadership should be a sacrifice and not a promotion.  You will notice that I do not have the room to complete the full hermeneutic circle here but am attempting to give a small scaled example of the importance of original message.

“This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink” (3-4)? 

Focus here on vs. 4 as we will integrate it into context in a moment.  The right to food and drink?  Where does this come from and why would he and Barnabas have this right?  Let’s hold off on answering this directly for a moment as we continue to build context.  “Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living” (6)?  Work for a living?  What does this mean in the context of their situation?  Let’s hold off one more time as we put puzzle pieces together.

“Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing” (7-8)? 

This passage has been used and will continue to be used as solid justification for those that serve the church to receive from the church.  My question is to receive what?  A living?  The plot thickens just a bit. 

“For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ” (9-12).  

The real question here is what material harvest is available to a minister?  This passage by itself with just a read of the text allows the imagination to run wild as I’m sure many of you (or at least the two dudes I let read this stuff) are thinking.  The thought may have crossed you mind, that’s the end of your little story as the Scriptures clearly lay out God’s plan for those who serve him in a ministry capacity.  This next section is a beautiful demonstration of hermeneutics coming alive!

“Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (13-14). 

Where is Paul getting this from?  This is of course an Old Testament reference which is absolutely viable as we know that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.  So with this defense in hand let’s review.  Who served at the temple in order to get their food from the temple?  Who served at the altar in order to share in its offerings?  If you said the Levites and Priests then you are correct!  May I ask you where did the Levite live?  How was a Levite’s needs taken care of, that is to say, what was his payment?  Was it not food and drink?  It would make sense according to vs. 4.  What was offered in the temples and on the altar if not food and drink?  The next words after this statement are eye opening, IN THE SAME WAY, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.  In the same way obviously stands out to me especially considering it is followed up with the name Jesus but it is the last part of the statement that truly preaches.  By the way as the new high priest where did Jesus lay his head at night?  What did Jesus provide his disciples with when he sent them on a mission… look it up for yourself.  Getting back on track, “should receive their living from the Gospel.”  What does it mean to receive a living?  This is where language has failed us as we have twisted the original meaning of this saying.  It is to earn enough to live on, literally.  The saying was used in the US as early as the late 1600’s and was almost always in reference to preachers.  “Earn enough to support oneself, as in Can he make a living as a freelance trumpeter? This term was first recorded in 1632” (Dictionary.com).

“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast” (15).

Paul did not use his right to food and drink, but why?  Rather die?  Why does Paul consider this his boast?

“For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel” (16-18).

Paul says that if he preaches voluntarily he then has a reward… there is a clear distinction being made here.  What is the reward then?  To offer it free of charge!  Why would he say this, who is not offering the Word free of charge at this point?

“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 Corinthians 2:17).

The same author Paul, who is widely accepted as the New Testament church’s greatest leader has set a bar that few will even attempt to shoot for and why would they?  Have we turned service to the Gospel into a profession?  This seems like an impossibility to thrive as a church in this day and age but the Bible is clear (I believe) and there is one more reminder to encourage us with.

“‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Matthew 5:17-20)

I have a ton more to say as I’m sure you do as well… feel free and even compelled to disagree.

Who’s serving whom?

I often (perhaps too often) find myself thinking about the intended purpose for leaders in a church.  This is a natural progression from my studies in leadership development and yet I always feel a sense of guilt in the middle of these thoughts.  Never wanting to be critical or worse yet a cry baby I tend to hold these things in so as to not offend anyone.  In reality not finding a release valve for these thoughts forms a desire to rage against the machine and start flipping tables.  This is never a good option for me!  Let me paint a picture from the “other side” or thought process first.

Training and building up our leaders is a good thing and requires a level of diligence.  This may involve extra biblical training at various conferences or perhaps retreats in order to allow the leader to vent with those who can relate.  If the leader is to lead anyone he or she must have something to offer after all.  This makes logical sense and I can see the reasoning in these statements or thoughts.  I just do not believe they’re even remotely true.  It is not as if I did not enjoy these times when put in these positions but that was when I thought as a child (this is my own point of view) but as a man this is not leadership it is pampering. 

These are strong statements of opinion I have written here and that is what they are in every way.  This does not mean I do not think I can defend my position.  If Jesus did indeed come not only to die for us but also to live for us then He is the example in every living way.  That is to say when it comes to leadership Jesus is the standard.  Can I simply ask this question:  Would Jesus spend money on taking his disciples to a mountain side anything (resort, hotel… swamp for that matter) in order to teach and train them for the mission coming up?  You may say, that’s not fair because Jesus had no money and He did take them to quiet places to pray and even learn.  Why did they have no money in the first place?  What were their days filled with?  These are fair questions even in light of the fact that we are speaking about Jesus and His followers. 

I do not think Jesus set the bar too high for us, the problem is that the bar has been set.  But where would the church be without paid leadership?  Right where it should be.  I am not opposed to providing for a workers needs at all... It should be a sacrifice however and not a promotion!  Jesus said he came as one who serves... Just how much do you think he got paid for his services?  Surely it was the highest amount as his qualifications speak for themselves.  How did Jesus compensate his followers when he sent them out?  Did he not tell them to take nothing!  How would this go over today and would the argument come back to, "but that was Jesus and his followers."  Who do you follow?  If the answer is Jesus then you are his follower, no different than the followers we read about today.  At the end of the day my real beef is that the church has come to serve the leaders and the leaders have come to expect this along with a paycheck.

Conform to what?

Should every member of a fellowship strive to be like the minister?  Should every minister preach the same lesson world-wide every Sunday for the sake of unity?  This was once a boast for my fellowship… go anywhere around the world to one of our church meetings and you will hear the same message and sing the same songs.  This actually was meant to create an identical atmosphere to that of the popular churches within our fellowship; which was intended to resemble the love of the first Christian church found in the book of Acts.  Noble ideals to say the least but are they even biblical or perhaps more to the point an actual representation of Christ?

There is a good deal of emphasis on the body, or church of Christ, and rightly so; however, what is our emphasis?  I have found (opinion alert!) that our focus on the body is singularly to promote and enforce a sense of unity and even conformity.  This is done by reminding the congregation that they are a part of the body and if the thumb is missing the hand cannot function properly.  I actually enjoy this analogy and believe it to hold to some of the principals found in the Scriptures concerning the church.  I suppose this then is my beef: we can really talk a good game about how one part of the body means so much to the function of the rest but we do not allow that part of the body to be itself.  Let’s expand on this with an illustration.

I have always been inspired by the faith and ambition of Kip McKean (feel free to disagree… I’ll still sleep at night) and after spending a day with him and his wife I was struck with some really profound observations.  One, this guy really is a man of faith because there is simply no way he could have orchestrated a world-wide movement… he’s just not that savvy.  The McKean’s also live in an apartment that they rent, which was a conviction of theirs from the start… he wears cheap ties and they drive a Toyota sedan thing. I say all this to say I walked away understanding that what this man says he actually has the faith to believe it completely… could be the makings of a mad man or a revolutionist???  It was when I arrived back home I had my moment of deep understanding as I began to receive one phone call after the next inviting me into the ministry that Kip now leads.

I was confused at first because I did not give him this impression at all!  I then saw something that tipped the scales from confusion to enlightenment during the conversations though.  These men are saying the same things that Kip says and even with the same tone and fervor but they really do not know why they are saying them!  One man (Kip) says something inspiring from his own heart, mind and convictions that moves a crowd… the would-be leader hears what is said and is inspired to also move a crowd or ministry in the same way, but how to accomplish this?  Say the same thing he said and say it the way he said it and people will respond in the same way.  Great, and perhaps a good business model but what about the toe being different then the hand?  Was Paul identical in his speech patterns and style just like Peter or even Jesus?  This was a discovery made on a very localized and personal level but it did not stop there.

It is easy to see the faults of others and then criticize them for it until you realize that you are in the same boat, different ocean (I do not know if this has ever been said before but I feel like I just made this up and its mine).  As I study some of the great theologians in history I often fall in love with the theology they teach… thinking to myself surely this man has it on straight, this then must be the way in which to follow Christ.  Only to turn to the next chapter to read about another theologian’s philosophy and think wow, this is so right on, this then must be the way to follow Christ.  Would the church have enough room for these two very different minded leaders and their great thoughts on Christ and why are there different perspectives on a book that does not change?  Perhaps the answer is within the body already… maybe we need a one-two punch combination and not just one tool in the tool box…  I will carry this thought on later as I think about this topic all the time.

Action Packed?

I often wonder if there is any way I could go back to the way things once were for me.  There was a time when I did not question anything and viewed this as my spiritual act of worship in many ways.  At the very least I was being a hard fighting soldier of the Lord.  This is not to mock being a soldier of the Lord as I believe I am still in the army and understand fully where my marching orders come from.  At times I begin to understand that ignorance (this is not used to say stupid) can be bliss.  Anyone who knew me as a new convert would easily testify that I was zealous for the mission.  In fact, this was my moniker amongst my brothers and sisters… “This is Alex; he’s super zealous for Jesus…” 

This was an identity for me and I thrived under its banner.  I did have a brother pull me aside once and tell me to just enjoy life as I am on the fast track to burning out… this was excellent advice as it came from the one person who should have never said this to me.  He was my campus minister at the time and I was the most baptizinest dude in his ministry.  His only gain in telling me this must have been from a sincere concern and I truly believe this started me down a road that I am still on to this day.  For all my fame an nicknames there was a moment of clarity for me after this conversation and I wanted so much more than just a taste of this clarity (best word I can think of to describe this moment) because it was good.

If you have ever watched an old Schwarzenegger action film as a young man you quickly come to the conclusion that you need to work out and the movie was AWESOME!  He is the top grossing actor of all time so stop snickering and pretending you never liked his stuff.  Later on however, the movie you once got the goose bumps from is revealed for what it is.  Explosions and one-liners that stay in your mind for weeks… “I’ll be back or He’s dead tired.”  Plot and character development matter very little in the grand scheme of things because you know if you can get through the acting there is an explosion and hack one-liner moments away.  As a mature adult you begin to wonder how has this man become so popular and how did he get elected to run California?

The simple answer has to be that action sells and popularity reigns.  Blow things up and put butts in the seats and we will believe you can do anything!  I began to wonder about my own popularity at this point and why were grown men asking me for advice?  Oh brother, I can preach the Word and when it comes to studying the Bible and converting folks there are few like me… these are the findings of a man at a crossroads.  I believe fully that you must say what you think out loud in order to realize the depth of insanity you are beginning to buy into.  This is not to say that I cannot preach I believe I am more than capable in this area and as for studying with someone there is nothing I enjoy more… but this is not my identity!  After a time you begin to see the “strings” so to speak and the great explosion is really a distraction (or at least it can be) to an inability to develop a viable plot with substance.

Why raise up only our campus ministry leaders and why the continual heavy push on that ministry?  They put butts in the seats and the big BOOM never gets old because they graduate and a new batch comes in after them.  What message does this send?  Somehow I was tricked into believing that the entire New Testament was simply about baptism and conversion and that is certainly there and that primarily in one book.  Why was the initial “planting” of the Christ church such a huge success?  It was an explosion of baptism and the newness could not be stopped and praise God for that… I am no hater!  The New Testament does not end with the book of Acts however… the BOOM got old and the rest of these letters are written to strengthen and encourage a group that needed more than the next explosion…