Esteem of Men, and the place of ethos

"'No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth.' Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. And He said to them, 'You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God'" (Luke 16:14-15).

Well clearly one would have to define "men" in this context, but is it not astounding the contrast depicted here? Detestable is a strong word. This has implications on how I should conduct myself in light of navigating the waters of serving God and considering others perspectives. There is no question the Christian life is to be lived in community. That involves interacting with other humans; emotions, position and analysis play into how we interact with others. Naturally, and to an extent acceptably, being "esteemed among men" will occur.

What character of "men" is the Lord warning against? In the context of this passage, they were religious men, the Pharisees. That doesn't help... I think there are religious men and women who can esteem me in high regards, and that would be good. The Pharisees were religious men who were missing the revealing of the Messiah, and so were not aligned with God's heart for proper religious affections.

Well, what are proper religious affections? I think determining this will adequately instruct a Christian in assessing how one is properly "justified in the sight of men" so that one can do the work of God with credibility.

To qualify, being "justified in the sight of men [and women]" is only acceptable to a degree. If it was entirely unacceptable, there would be no good leadership at all. Perhaps Paul's words in Romans 12:3 ("For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think...") are a good starting point for determining the weight of esteem given as acceptable. Esteem is not the end. Esteem should be only a means to the end of glorifying God, the only worthy One. When it becomes about us, it no longer is right, and only justifies in worldly appearance; worldly appearance holds no ground at the throne of the Sovereign.

So where does this leave us? We have some truths. First, God does not like, rather, He detests the frivolous games of mankind to appear well off and "right." We take the seat of Sovereign when we do, to our destruction if we don't repent. Second, serving God and serving self (to make one appear righteous), which is wealth, cannot co-exist. Those who serve wealth/self will hate those who serve God. So the esteem given to you or me by those "men" are really toxic lures to serve the wrong master, when one's affections are not for God.

I make it sound so black and white, but it is not. I know there are some within the institution of Christianity that appear to be doing things for God, but their hearts are all for self. And even this is a spectrum, where that reality occurs very often in some to the extent that it is the rule, and there are others who only occasionally slip into this dangerous transgression due to the weakness of the flesh to maintain spiritual, life-sustaining practices.

What is more important: spiritual or emotion intelligence? I feel I have a lot of the spiritual sort, and emotional intelligence can be corrupted. I guess spiritual intelligence can too. What I am trying to say is I value the Holy Spirit, who reveals all truth (John 16:5-15). I see the need of emotional intelligence (hence, why I chose to work to build my own), but mine is deficient, and the wisdom given to me is not easily heard.

Must I have ethos with my audience or will the Spirit work regardless, in fact because of my weakness so that God will be made much in my lack?

Forgiveness an act of compassion

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.

This parable from Matthew 18:21-35 is fascinating because it has a weird integration of compassion and wrath. The unmerciful servant who was forgiven much originally, failed to show the same caliber of compassion by forgiving his debtor, and thus received the wrath of the Master. We know from parable study that the Master is God metaphorically, and the servants acts as case studies for how we are to conduct ourselves. We cannot expect to be forgiven and shown mercy by a compassionate God if we in turn fail to grant that same kind of pardon to others.

So does this parable teach to become "wishy-washy" Christians, uncertain of our standards and tolerant of all? Or is there a discernible Absolute in which the Christian can know one to be in the wrong and to be held accountable to their error? What would it look like to hold one accountable to one's debt yet "forgiv[ing of] his brother from [one's] heart" (Matt 18:35)? Is the issue of compassion and forgiveness more concerned with the toxicity of the heart regarding interpersonal relationships than grounds of conflict? These are some of the questions I think are not made explicit by this text, but answerable elsewhere in Scripture.

Assuming ultimately God knows contention will occur, at varying degrees of culpability, and that justice is of a great concern for God, the forgiving has more to do with maintaining a healthy heart stance in the Christian. How toxic is my heart? Do I harbor animosity toward others? Do I serve others in love, and withhold love due to a grudge? Where am I in the forgiving process; have I forgiven yet re-established resentment and in need of another forgiving session (in the long line of seventy times seven)?

To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Here in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, Paul says something that I think can be taken out of context. It is related to my last post of Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. What this text does say is that adaptation in presentation is allowed and beneficial. What it doesn't say is that the presentation of the Gospel can be diluted or made palatable. You cannot render the gospel non-offensive for the sake of "winning" souls, as if you would actually convert anyone genuinely.

Paul adapted his presentation to the Athenians at Mars Hill in order to make sense of his message in terms they would comprehend. He did not become Athenian, adopting their idol worship, assimilating into their culture in order to build ethos. That would be apostacy.

How often do we fail to pick battles with opposing cultural norms, even adopting them ourselves, seeing them as acceptable means to the end for evangelism, leaving our witness and message tainted. How much of a conflict would ensue if Christians actually made a fuss about idolatry? Would we be more effective? Would we be persecuted more to the level seen in Scripture?

Sermon on Mars Hill

Act 17 depicts the account of Paul's mission to Athens, proclaiming the Gospel to the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in the synagogues and also in the marketplaces to all who would listen. Idol worship was rampant. They had a god for everything and altars to boot.

Paul did not practice a evangelist model of "turn or burn" as some street evangelists do today. But he read the culture, and pulled from it useful "ins" that could be manipulated to point toward Christ. Most prominent is the altar to the Unknown God. Now, he was speaking to philosophers who spent their days talking. It was recreation and game to them. Paul spoke regarding salvation, however, and framed this God of Israel as demanding of repentance.

He reached some. I think a big lesson to be grasped from this is the need to be willing to meet people on their terms to an extent. They would listen because Paul used things they were interested in. He respected their culture to an extent

They didn't try to escape

The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods. When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely;and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!" And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

This account from Acts 16:22-30 is pretty telling of a great posture of a Christian. One, Paul and Silas were beaten up. Then they were jailed. What was their response? They sung praises to God. I would argue that these weren't calculated, manipulative gestures as to raise curiosity among the other prisoners. I believe they were so in love with God, and so unconcerned with appearance or status with others that they sang unabashedly.

Would you sing praises to God aloud walking down a busy street, unaffected by those around you simply because I adored God that much? I think this is what Paul and Silas were doing.

Not only that, God demonstrated His power by releasing an earthquake that rendered the restraints useless. Yet they did nor flee. They remained, seeing it as an opportunity to minister to the jailor who now feared reprimand (execution) for allowing an escape.

Paul and Silas did not consider themselves first, trying to flee, but they remained. And they never harbored bitterness or contempt against their enemies (persecutors and the jailor).

Perhaps with such an attitude of worship in me, may I have opportunity to be used by God because I consider no one to be a worthy adversary, and they will know me by my love for God.

Paul Departs Silas Over John Mark

^{Acts 15:36} Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. ³⁸ But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. ³⁹ Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. ⁴¹ And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

It seems as though Paul didn't like John Mark at this time. He felt betrayed by him, as he bailed on a previous missionary journey (Acts 13:13). How could Paul trust John Mark to come with them to visit those they shared the gospel with when he proved unreliable? I can imagine emotions were dictating a lot of the decisions. So there a two positions: Barnabas looked past weakness and included John Mark; Paul wouldn't have any of that and went off just with Silas. Is one more proper than the other?

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure the text tells explicitly. We know in Colossians 4:10, that Paul was reconciled to John Mark, as he instructed the church to welcome him upon his arrival. I imagine Paul valued the unity of the Body more than holding grudges. John Mark could well have been in the wrong, leaving for selfish or fearful reasons. This well may have set back the mission. His frustration with John Mark is not unmerited.

So where does that leave us?

For sure, the unity of the faith and "one accord"-ness is most difficult considering the influences of ego (flesh), world and enemy.

Jesus' Encounter with the Woman at the Well

I explored Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus last week. Now, I look at the woman at the well encounter to see still more a grander picture of Jesus' posture toward people. It's striking that these events are recorded right after one another. John did this deliberately, I'm sure, to be compared and contrasted. Where Jesus was pursued by Nicodemus at night, Jesus initiated the interaction with the Samaritan woman by day, when He knew He could reach her alone.

That Jesus even spoke to her is astounding. A male Jew does not associated with Samaritans, let alone a woman. Why would Jesus break this cultural taboo? He wanted to have relationship with her. Any relationship Jesus pursues serves a purpose of advancing His Father's Kingdom. He saw it fit to "include" her in on the things of God, regardless of what reputation He may acquire.

As I read the account, I'm struck by how resistive the woman is, dodging Jesus' line of thought, changing the subject (John 4:19), especially when Jesus touches on subjects that are sensitive, mainly her sin. Funny, He called her out, and yet in a way that was never belittling. You can feel Jesus' motives exuding from Him, almost thinking aloud as He speaks, "If I can just get through her defenses, remind her of her brokenness so I can get her to think about the Messiah, I can reveal myself to her and she will believe." Exposing her error is not to demean her and leave her naked and exposed; exposing her makes her ready to be restored. With no sense of sin, one never realizes the need for repentance, the need for God.

So we are to expose sin. Jesus did it. But He did it in a way that was loving. He did not talk down (one can speculate His tone was kind or neutral) to her, but spoke with authority, to the extent that she trusted He would have the answers to all her questions. He drew them in like that.

For me, I like the approach Jesus took with Nicodemus. I feel much more comfortable having people approach me than being the initiator. Giving resistance to test others of how much they value me, seems safe. I need to realize my motives (what I value) when taking this approach, and judge whether I need to be more like Jesus as with the Samaritan woman. Sometimes people need to be engaged and pressed. I just wish I could discern the heart of mankind like Christ could; I might better know which battles won't bear fruit.

Jesus' Encounter with Nicodemus

This is the first blog entry of about fifteen in which I will be looking to the Scriptures, particularly narrative for Jesus or Paul or another key Christian leader, to evaluate the posture such a leader took with interacting with his audience.

Today, I look at Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus.

The first thing that stands out is that Jesus did not initiate this encounter. Nicodemus was curious to know more about this strange Jew who spoke with authority regarding the Scriptures despite being a carpenter. This is how the discussion began:

Nicodemus: "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Jesus answered: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

I'm sorry, but Jesus doesn't seem like he's too concerned with making Nicodemus feel welcome. That response to such a premise is cryptic, if not downright standoffish. Nicodemus came to Jesus because he recognized Jesus had a connection with God. Jesus' first words were that none could participate in knowing and understanding God's work unless they were born again. Okay, step into Nicodemus' shoes; there's a familiarity with this phrase that Nicodemus never had. He interpreted this as thinking one had to exit the womb of one's mother a second time. That's how cryptic Jesus was speaking.

It never got any better. Jesus remained very mysterious, speaking riddles in a sense. Why? I thought Jesus was all-loving, all-embracing, always approachable. At least, that's the construct we build of Him in our minds, the image we hold of Him that inspires our posture with others. Okay, so this is one event in Jesus' life and by all means should not define His predominant posture with people. In context, this posture was taken with a religious leader, one of prestige. We know Christ discerned the hearts of mankind (John 2:23-25) and so knew that Nicodemus had a to accepting His gospel; yet Jesus remained cryptic. Was this a test for Nicodemus? Like speaking in parables, was Jesus deliberately making it hard for him, knowing Nicodemus would have to truly wrestle with these words if he wanted to know God?

So I have one posture of Jesus. More to come.