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