“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you... and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?” (Job 12:7, 8b, 9).
As we read about different animals in the Bible, we see that God made animals for us to learn from them many great and valuable lessons in life. Animals have distinct characteristics that can show us how humans should behave.
Jesus taught truths using these animals in the form of similes.
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).
We observe from the characteristics of these animals, that sheep are vulnerable to predators, such as wolves. The sheep are without protection. Wolves are hunters on the prowl. They will devour innocent sheep in a heartbeat. Serpents are considered wise with sly and cunning maneuvers. Snakes will move slowly through new territory. Usually, they stay concealed finding a place to hide.
Doves were designed with innocent, meek, and gentle qualities. They are birds known to be non-threatening. When Jesus sent his disciples out to teach the world, He compared them to sheep amid wolves. Jesus knew there would be people out there, who would attack them for their proclaimed message.
How does a person become wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove? It does sound as if the two do not mix. To be wise is to be practical, prudent, and discerning regarding relationships.
Be wise in keeping yourself innocent.
Be practical in keeping yourself away from the evil in the world.
Be prudent in how you manage yourself around others.
Know when to turn away and hide like that wise snake when others want to lead you into temptation.
Recently, traveling for a speaking engagement some dear friends and I reminisced over the time when they pulled one of the most memorable pranks on me that will live on in the lore of our friendship until the Lord returns. As we talked about this event, I realized I learned something important about friendship that had not truly crossed my mind before. I would like to invite you to join me in the retelling of this story and a reflection on friendship.
The Snowman Prank
The setting. It was a cold Spring Semester at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tennessee. Usually, snow would fall in February and last for a few weeks. I can tell you driving in snow was one of the more challenging adjustments I had to make, as the driving I experienced in San Francisco little prepared me for it. After living in Henderson for a couple of years, I had developed some comfort with the cold and awareness for driving in the snow–especially becoming alert for “black ice.”
Snow out on the roads is one thing, but it was beyond thought to anticipate the sight I came upon one cold day in my car. I was heading to my car after taking a test in an undergraduate Bible class, when I noticed a car that looked just like mine with a snowman in the front passenger seat. I told myself, “wow, that’s funny… a snowman is sitting in the car,” shaking my head in disbelief. No way that was my car. No way a snowman was in my car.
It wasn’t until I tapped my key fob, heard the beep and saw the lights flicker that I accepted the truth. Even then it was tentative. I walked up to the car in disbelief, examining through the window the incredulous reality that a snowman sat on my front passenger seat. It was a fully three-tiered perfectly white snowman. I even marveled that whoever had done this was at least “Christian” about it as they had placed a garbage bag underneath it to protect the fabric. “Wow, this is what Christian pranks look like,” I thought to myself.
I realized I had left my car unlocked which in turn gave the pranksters the literal “open door.” In the course of a couple of years in small town Henderson, I had grown comfortable contrary to all the security precautions I had learned in the big-city. We locked everything. The front door to the home I grew up in had five locks. But now, I felt safe and comfortable, and look at how I was repaid… with a snowman! I was no longer the guarded city-kid who distrusted any person walking on the side of the street.
Unexpected Reactions
Today I chuckle at this story. I wish I had then my sensibilities that I have now. But I can assure you that my prankster friends bore witness to an unexpected reaction from their Christian brother. They had an aerial view of whole encounter from the large and wide windows of the Student Center/Cafeteria overlooking the parking lot. It was the perfect perch for them to be rewarded by seeing the comedy but that’s not entirely what happened.
I decided to remove the snowman, as one does, from my car. Instead of a calm and somewhat goofy procedure to move it to the sidewalk, I proceeded to dismember the snowman and slam each frozen sphere to the ground. My friends realized that I did not take the prank so kindly or jovial as they had hoped. They saw rage. As it was at this time they realized they messed up.
I can tell you, each time I picked an increasingly larger icy ball over my head I dropped it with all the force I could muster. I was not used to good-humored pranks. Every prank I received or dished out in the streets never had good-willed intentions. Humiliations were not really tolerated, unless you were on the lower end of the totem pole. Like Coolio said, “Me be treated like a punk, you know that’s unheard of.”[1]
When my friends saw my reaction, they knew it was time to go. As they have told me, they quickly vacated the premises, hopped in a car and tried to escape undetected. They tried. After I took my heat off on the snowman, I proceeded to investigate to see if there were any witnesses to the “crime.” Nothing proved fruitful until I saw a car pull up. I could not identify who was in it, but it looked guilty. After a few attempts to corner them, they escaped my grasp. Eventually, I took a call in which they confessed guilt to this prank.
Accepting Good-willed Friendship Fun
Suddenly, my indignation melted away to relief that my friends meant the prank as nothing more than some friendly winter fun. At that time in my life, I had very little experience with this type of fun. This was not a cruelly-intended hazing, it was just fun shared among good friends. It was a practical joke, a rather hilarious one.
It is not that I lacked friends growing up, but the “jokes” we played on each other always had an element of humiliation that betrayed trust. Even the “jokes” were deceptions designed to manipulate me and my emotions. I once had a friend that told me my wife and toddler daughter died in a car accident they had actually been in. It felt as the Proverb says:
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!” (Proverbs 26:18–19 ESV)
But my friends were people of quality. I went from gangsters to pranksters. Again, the Proverbs tell us
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. (Proverbs 18:24)
Over the past twenty plus years, despite the passing of time, the reunions with my closest friends have been sweeter than honey–even if some of them placed a snowman in my car.
Friendship in the Bible
The Bible speaks about friendship, of the 187* instances of the Hebrew word rea’ (friend, companion, neighbor, fellow, associate), the English Standard Version of the Bible translates it “friend” thirty-three times. Broadly, however, it means to suggest an acquaintance or fellow–a neighbor. It is the word used in the Second Great Commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev 19:18; 19: 13, 16; Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8). While not all “neighbors” are those that stick closer than a brother, God’s people are called to treat all neighbors with dignity and respect (i.e., love).
The book of Proverbs provides a number of insightful principles for appreciating the value of good friendships.
We need good friends. More importantly we need good friends. Additionally, we need not only to be “friends” to many, but a good friend who treats people with dignity and respect. We make our interactions personal, rather than impersonal.[2] The proverbs of Solomon continue this theme in the following couplet (Prov 10:1):
A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. One who lacks sense gives a pledge and puts up security in the presence of his neighbor. (Proverbs 17:17–18)
These two verses are connected by the word rea’, translated “friend” and “neighbor.” There seems to be an intensification of “friend” who expresses a loyalty like a sibling, the closest relationship in the ancient world. Such a friend will be there even in times of rushed decisions without abandoning them in their time of need.[3]
Perhaps no better example of this type of friendship is found outside of David and Jonathan. In the midst of David’s rise in Israel during the reign of King Saul, Jonathan and David’s friendship transcended family allegiances. It is said that “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” and makes a covenant with him (1 Sam 18:1). He even protected David from his father’s wrath (1 Sam 20).
Good friends are not pushovers. They are not enablers. Many a “ride or die” friendship has imploded because they offer no space for accountability. Proverbs calls us to this very truth:
Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.Like a bird that strays from its nest is a man who strays from his home. Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel. Do not forsake your friend and your father’s friend, and do not go to your brother’s house in the day of your calamity. Better is a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far away. (Proverbs 27:5–10)
The word friend in this section is the translation of ahabāh means “love,” as in “one who loves.” A faithful friend who loves us will not withhold their love from us, but will offer words that may leave a mark. These “wounds” are not the sort to injure, but to provide counsel so their friend may redirect their decisions. It may hurt on the front end, but the outcome will be like sweet food or an enjoyable fragrance.[4] Such friends are comparable family who have a vested interest in our success.
Could we have a better friend than God? James writes of Abraham that it was his faith in God that led to his deep relationship with the Lord. He affirms that “‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God” (Jas 2:23). Moses spent time in the Tent of Meeting and communed with the Lord there. “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Exod 33:11a). Faith in the words and character of God, and the boldness to commune with the Lord are vital components to a vibrant “friendship” with the Lord.
Concluding Thoughts
God clearly points us to forging good friendships. Being a good neighbor is the foundation to offering authentic friendship and loyalty to those outside our families. Sometimes, we find deeper relationships or comparable ones in outsiders to the point that our neighbor is now our soul knit friend.
It can be very difficult for many of us to make friendships and trust in the good will they offer. This is often due to trauma. At least it was in my case. I did not know how to have fun and playful friendships. These pranksters helped me break through a hang up I did not know was there. I am beyond grateful the Lord has blessed me with friends like these at different stages in my life.
I pray that in your lifetime, and despite any trauma, you too will appreciate and be blessed by good friends. Finally, I pray that you will learn to be the friend your neighbor needs in their time of difficulties and hardships. This is the commandment of love that identify us as disciples of Jesus (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8).
Endnotes
Coolio, “Gangsta’s Paradise” (1995).
Derek Kidner, Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (1964; repr., Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 41.
Dave Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 165.
[Note: This is a pre-pub version of my article submission for The Jenkins Institute’s August 2023 issue of The Preaching & Ministry Journal.]
God created human beings to be social, and to live within community. When “God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him,” notice that the text then equates this action with, “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).[1] The word “man” (’adam) here is not exclusive to the male but is generic for mankind as a created order. Mankind is the only creation made in God’s image and likeness, which is to say, that elements of the human species allow us to approximate what God is like. Humans are not God, but they share a “family resemblance.” A few of these resemblances include being free social, moral, spiritual, and relational creatures.
Christian ministry among God’s people and in the world speaks to these fundamental human issues and experiences. God has always communicated his will to humanity to shape our social, moral, spiritual, and relational toward godliness through Divine action, word, or prophetic revelation (Heb 1:1–2; 4:12–13). Unfortunately, our ungodliness gets in the way. Not only is the human response to the exposing power of God’s word often filled with resistance, but often the people who pursue godly living are resisted, rejected, and in extreme cases have been persecuted (1 Pet 4:1–19). Christian ministry, then, is grounded in the understanding of God’s word, its proclamation of the gospel by which sin is condemned, and the power of God’s gracious sanctification is heralded.
The work of Christian ministry is seated right in the heart of the human experience. It challenges free will choices, condemns certain actions, and commends others, and does so with love and righteousness serving as tandem virtues. Jesus in his farewell words to his disciples, reminded them that the word of God makes enemies. For this reason, he quoted Psalm 35:19, “They hated me without a cause” (John 15:26). This raises the issue of this short essay: while ministry is often filled with wonderful experiences and we witness meaningful spiritual triumphs, it is inevitable that the ministry of the word will create conflict among those we share it. We cannot always live in peace with everyone. How do we as ministers navigate this hard bitter truth? I suggest the following spiritual and emotional tools.
Spiritual Tools
Sitting with the Rejected Jesus
When we find ourselves at the barrel end of the anger and rejection of those we minister to, we need to sit with Jesus. God’s work comes with rejection. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). The prophet Isaiah foresaw the coming of Jesus and depicted him as the rejected servant who will suffer for the healing of Israel (52:13–53:12; Acts 8:35). On the surface, he was “stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isa 53:4), but in fact, he was punished by God for Israel’s rebellion against God (Isa 53:5).
Robert Chisholm notes that Isaiah affirms that “this apparent alienation was not final” for God’s servant will be vindicated (53:10–11).[2]The Gospels recount in detail how in his ministry Jesus was rejected for the hard truths against hypocrisy, traditionalism, and lack of love and grace for the downtrodden. I have learned to sit with Jesus when I feel rejected by those to whom I minister the word of God.
The Light Must Shine in the Darkness
The light of God’s word often creates tensions with those whose sins, consciences, or beliefs are cloaked in the darkness of worldliness. There is a great temptation to preach what is agreeable to the majority. When we push beyond what is traditionally expected or on controversial topics, biblical conclusions about sin may be met with hostility. These hostilities may be warranted if the presentation lacked love or adequate biblical foundation. Other times, hostilities arise because a social norm that has become acceptable is called sin. The preaching of repentance is to trade in resistance.
Additionally, preaching God’s word trades in light and darkness, righteousness and sin, morality and immorality, and personal sins and relational sins. If we refrain to proclaim the “whole counsel of God” then we will have abdicated our role as servants of God (Acts 20:26–27; Gal 1:10). It is hard to speak God’s word to people you love when you know that you are shining God’s light into their darkness (John 1:5, 11–12), but this is the task we have accepted. Trust the light to do its work.
Compassionate without Compromise
Every preacher brings a culture to their pulpit. Our desire to be faithful to God’s word can sometimes lack compassion. We should take time to evaluate if some of our uneasy relationship with others is because we preach as if there is only one type of preaching: harsh. The oracles of Moses, the prophets, and the sermons and discourses of Jesus and the apostles provide us with diverse examples of proclamation. Jesus certainly condemns sin. Remarkably, he lovingly invites the sinner to the innermost part of his heart (Matt 11:28–30).
On one occasion, Matthew cites Isaiah 42:1–3 to describe Jesus’ healing love for the sick. His compassion is framed as “a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench” (Matt 12:18–21). William Barclay (1907–1978) reflects on this well, “A man’s witness may be shaky and weak; the light of his life may be but a flicker and not a flame; but Jesus did not come to discourage but encourage.”[3] We should always do some soul-searching when reflecting on the friction created by our attempts to proclaim God’s word.
Emotional Tools
Disappointment is a Normal Reaction
Isaiah declared, “who has believed what he has heard from us?” (53:1). Paul himself cited this in Romans 10:16 as he discusses the problem that not everyone will believe, yet the gospel must go out. Ministry is people work. We work with people. People disappoint us, especially those that know us and our love for them. It is hard not to personally take the rejection of what we teach and preach. Jesus reminds us that when our teaching aligns with his, any rejection of the doctrine goes back to our God.
The disappointment in “ministry outcomes” can tap into our identity issues and send us down a shame and depression spiral. Not everyone will like our preaching style. Not everyone will like our personality. Not everyone will accept us either. Sadly, we will be misunderstood as well. We will be judged by word gaffes in the pulpit. Our hard stand on sin will sometimes be confused for bigotry and outdated morality. People we love may be inadvertently hurt by ministering the word of God. We always want clear skies, but we must endure cloudy days. Disappointment is a normal reaction when our good-faith intentions in ministry create personal problems with others. Love them through your disappointments.
Frustration is No Excuse for Bad Behavior
As a young man, I thought I would become an auto mechanic for Mercedes-Benz. One day in auto school, two Russian students were heard banging on a car. The teacher yelled out into the shop, “What are you doing?” In response one of the men said in a thick Russian accent, “Don’t worry, sledgehammer and screwdriver fix everything.” My teacher was not impressed. When our message offends, and it will then remember we are stewards of God’s word. When we are frustrated by how people respond to us, we need to remember it is not an excuse for short-sighted responses that satisfy our emotional fixations of retribution.
“Sledgehammer and screwdriver” will not fix everything. When reading the Gospels, Jesus certainly had his fair share of direct controversies, but he always tempered them based on the kind of person that stood before him. Frustration often seeks a release because we have been let down. It is hard to remember that the person in front of you needs the grace of Jesus, not a petty unkind word that took a second to say but may take a lifetime to overcome. Yet, we are called to be peacemakers between God and man, and with each other (Matt 5:9; Jas 3:17–18). The work of peace-making applies the transforming “heart of Jesus” to times of conflict.[4]
Pray and Meditate through the Psalms
If there ever was a biblical figure that understood conflict in his life with those who oppose God’s will, few rival David. To say David was not perfect is an understatement. He is a multi-dimensional figure. Warrior and worshiper, sinner and a man after God’s own heart, condemned and vindicated, a political rival and a Divinely appointed king. The books of Samuel also reveal him to be musically inclined. He eventually received the moniker, “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sam 23:1). 73 psalms in the Psalter explicitly are “of David.” They are prayer-songs David wrote to praise God, declare faith and trust in God, plea for divine retribution, and recount God’s deliverance. Philip Yancey says that these “150 psalms are as difficult, disordered, and messy as life itself, a fact that can bring unexpected comfort.”[5] These psalms are a powerful tool for emotionally wrestling with ministry conflicts.
A significant form of the psalm is the lament. The lament is essentially a broad category of urgent prayer for God’s redeeming and saving intervention. Despite the sense of being God’s anointed and chosen, it seems rejection follows God’s servant. Sometimes the rejection is fatal and communal (Psa 22), or betrayal (Psa 41). These laments reveal that conflict in the life of God’s servant can cause confusion despite a deep faith. They can help structure our prayer life when wrestling with conflict. Psalm 13, for example, illustrates this process: call to God with our complaint (1–2), petition God to intervene (3a), give God reasons for his intervention (3b–4), and an expression of faith or sense of vindication that God has helped us through our conflicts with others (5–6). It is an interactive type of prayer.[6] As ministers, we need a prayer life to help us cope with conflicts in ministry when we are unable to live peaceably with others.
Conclusion
The spiritual and emotional tools I have surveyed are essential tools for the minister in times of conflict. I have not listed intellectual tools because our instincts to respond to conflict and rejection are often emotional responses. As Jack Cottrell (1933–2022) reflects,
What should a Christian do when harmed by another person…? The almost-universal tendency is to personally strike back, to retaliate, to try to get even, to make the evildoer pay for the harm he has done, i.e., to seek personal revenge.”[7]
Cottrell, Romans (1998)
Paul calls all Christians to resist this tendency for vengeance, “repay no one evil for evil… if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:17–18). My prayer for those in ministry is to develop the emotional and spiritual disciplines above so they can endure the temptations which emerge from ministerial conflict.
Endnotes
[1] All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.
[2] Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets (2002; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 120–21.
[3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975), 2:34.
[4] Ken Sande, The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 134–35.
[5] Philip Yancey, The Bible Jesus Read (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 119.
[6] Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 281–84.
[7] Jack Cottrell, Romans (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1998), 2:343.
Bibliography
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Revised edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1975.
Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. 2002. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.
Cottrell, Jack. Romans. 2 vols. College Press NIV Commentary. Edited by Anthony Ash. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1998.
Sande, Ken. The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004.
Yancey, Philip. The Bible Jesus Read. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
Christians must always be reminded of their responsibility to live out lives reflective of the high calling of God (Eph 4:1; Phil 3:14). There is a tremendous passage in 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10, which provides the Christian with the basic aspects of Christian living. Here is the passage:
For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 English Standard Version)
Let us examine this passage, and reflect on the four aspects of this passage: (1) reception of the word, (2) conversion, (3) consecrated service and (4) hope of deliverance.
I hope to invite modern Christians to reflect on the importance of turning to God in conversion, to living a sanctified life in anticipation of the final day when Jesus comes again.
The Background
First, let us consider some background information.
After leaving the city of Philippi, Paul and Silas traveled probably on horseback some 100 miles on the Egnatian Way through Amphipolis and Apollonia only to pause their trip in Thessalonica.[1] It is highly likely this was a three-staged trek to Thessalonica: Philippi to Amphipolis (30 mi.), Amphipolis to Apollonia (27 mi.), and Apollonia to Thessalonica (35 mi.).[2] Situated on the Egnatian Way, ancient Thessalonica was at the heart of Roman travel, communication, and culture in Macedonia. So much so, that William Barclay succinctly said, “East and West converged on Thessalonica.”[3]
The Book of Acts chronicles Paul’s initial evangelistic efforts in that great city (Acts 17:1–9), as he enters the synagogue and presents various elements of the gospel message as found in the prophetic writing of the Old Testament. In fact, in Acts 17:2, Luke says Paul spent three weeks “reasoning” with the Jews on the Sabbath, the word suggesting a rigorous discussion or possibly hints at a debate style of presentation (Grk. dialegomai).
Unfortunately, in this case, Luke does not inform us which scriptures Paul uses to build his case (cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Cor 15:3–5; Isa 53:2–8; Psa 22:1, 16:10; Acts 2:31). He only affirms that the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the embodiment of these prophetic utterings which adherents of the synagogue would have been familiar.
Luke observes the response of those that believed:
some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. (Acts 17:4)
Unfortunately, a number of Jews responded to the missionaries with political manipulation and leveraging. These Jews, operating out of jealousy, enlisted the worst of society and orchestrated a riot, and attacked and arrested Jason who was hosting Paul and his company (Acts 17:5–6).
When presenting their case against Jason and the Christians, this mob describes them with politically subversive language. They are those “who have turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6), “they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar” (Acts 17:7a), and “they are all… saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7b). Due to this charge, Jason is released to Paul and Silas on the conditions of payment of bail (“security”) and their departure (Acts 17:8–9). Paul later describes this as being “torn away” from them (1 Thess 2:17).
Reception of the Word
Sometime after leaving Thessalonica, Paul was restless and sent Timothy to Thessalonica for a report. Timothy returns with an encouraging report of their faithfulness (1 Thess 3:6). This faithfulness began when they believed Paul’s preaching in the synagogue (Acts 17:4). Luke notes that some Jews, and many devout Greeks (likely God-fearers) and leading women were “persuaded and joined Paul and Silas.” These are passive verbs, suggesting the work of the Spirit’s word compelled those with honest hearts to identify with the gospel proclaimers.
When Paul wrote to this young church, he recalls this moment. In fact, he frames their conversion as an example of the success of the gospel message received as God’s word:
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
The “makings” of a Christian begin when the gospel is heard not as just another philosophy, or religious message. Instead, as Paul recalls, before one becomes a Christian it is imperative that the preaching is regarded as the very word of God. This is the foundation; if this is not believed spiritual failure is surely looming in the distance.
Conversion: Turned from Idols
The actual verb “turned” in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 (Grk. epistrépho) carries the idea of turning around and directing this move towards a new object or a person. In Acts, the noun is used for conversion to God (Grk. epistrephe). Together with its more common verb “to turn” they appear a total of twelve times in the Book of Acts (3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15; 15:3 [noun], 19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27). Except for three instances (9:40, 15:36, and 16:18), the terms are exclusively used with reference to people turning to God in response to the Gospel.
Paul celebrates that as a result of accepting the word of God as authoritative and believing the gospel message, the Thessalonians turned to God after a life of serving “idols” (1 Thess 1:9). While Luke plants the conversion of the Thessalonians to those connected to the synagogue, in his letter Paul emphasizes a defection from the pagan background of the Greco-Roman converts.
This likely points to their lack of participation in the cults of their clans and tribes, temple, city, and “states” gods, which would have created a wedge between them and their neighbors. Albert Bell, Jr., notes that “the more gods a city worshiped, the better its chances of divine favor.”[4] It is known, for example, the people of Thessalonica worshipped Zeus, Asclepius, Aphrodite, and Demeter, and even the Egyptian gods Serapis and Isis. They were also given to the Samothrace cult of Cabrius.[5]
According to the Greco-Roman cultic mindset, Christians turning from the gods was not only difficult to understand but also came off as unpatriotic to the state. In their mind, it would not only have been subversive to the Spirit of Roma (Rome worshipped) and even the deified Caesar but also this behavior would have been seen as inviting divine disfavor (1 Thess 2:14). Paul celebrated their choice in doing this.
Children of God must remember their conversion was a choice. W. E. Vine insightfully comments on this conversion:
[It was] an immediate and decisive change, consequent upon a deliberate choice; a conversion is a voluntary act in response to the presentation of truth.[6]
They chose to leave their sins behind; they did not take them along in their new life as God’s people.
Consecrated Service
Again, the Thessalonians did not bring their old life with them. Instead, they were changed “to serve the living and true God.” In fact, Paul later writes to them that “God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thess 4:7). Service to God is expressed in the rejection of “the passions” of the past which reflects a rejection and of God (1 Thess 4:5).
Christian service is a demonstration that the things which were important and governed the fundamentals of our pre-Christian lives no longer function in this way. Christians are not to lean upon their past; instead, they are called to “stand fast in the Lord” (1 Thess 3:8).
In other words, Christians are to live lives devoted to serving God over our own ambitions. This is the “how to” of our service to God, to accept God sanctifying his people. Notice this emphasis on a consecrated and holy life:
For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:11–12)
Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (1Thessalonians 3:11–13)
For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality... For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. (1 Thessalonians 4:2–3, 7)
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
As a result of being converted, Christians are washed, consecrated, and remade for righteous service (1 Cor 6:9–11; Eph 2:10). Contemporary Christians need to take this message of consecration to heart.
Hope of Deliverance
Christians live in the present with a living hope which anticipates the second coming of Jesus. Paul is very clear when he affirms that there is a future point of hope and deliverance for which Christians wait for (1 Thess 1:10).
For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10)
Christians anticipate the Son to come “from heaven.” This last line is heavily loaded with theological truth. The Son is further described as the one God “raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” This is a statement of hope. The hope of the advent of Jesus (i.e., the second coming) is directly linked to God’s power demonstrated in the resurrection of Jesus. That God raised Jesus from the dead makes the claim that Jesus is returning from heaven a firm expectation.
With the certainty of the second coming of the Son “out from the heavens” (literal rendering of the Greek) established in the Christian mind, it affirmed that the Son, Jesus, will come with judgment for the unbelieving world (i.e., “the wrath to come”) but deliverance for the believer. Paul calls this “the day of the Lord,” a period of judgment and final consummation of God’s plan (1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 2 Thess 1:5–12).
Final Words
The gospel found fertile soils in the heart of early Thessalonian Christians. The congregation had a culturally and religiously diverse background, but they accepted the gospel as the word of God. Their faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead was also at work as they followed their call to holy living as they anticipate Jesus coming to judge the living and the dead, and delivering those who are his.
Sources
J. Carl Laney, Concise Bible Atlas (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 229.
Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), “The mention of Amphipolis and of Apollonia should probably be taken to imply that these were the places where the travellers [sic] spent successive nights, dividing the journey to Thessalonica into three stages of about 30, 27 and 35 miles” (115).
William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, revised edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975), 180.
Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998), 126.
Nijay K. Gupta, 1-2 Thessalonians: A New Covenant Commentary, New Covenant Commentary Series, eds. Michael F. Bird and Craig Keener (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016), 4. Russell Morton, “Samothrace” in Lexham Bible Dictionary, Logos electronic edition, ed. John D. Berry, et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016).
W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:647.
In the December 2015 issue of the Gospel Advocate magazine, my article, “The Widows Church of Christ” was published.[1] It focused on my experience one summer filling in at a small congregation near Freed-Hardeman University that at the time was composed exclusively of women and widows. In the piece, I briefly retold a conversation I had with one of the sisters there, rehearsed a few biblical examples of areas of women’s evangelistic involvement, and discussed women’s role in the assembly.
A reader called my attention to share her disagreement with the following few lines:
Scripture shows that Christian women prophesied and prayed in New Testament times (1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 22:8-9), taught the Word of God accurately (Acts 18:26), and brought people to salvation (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14-15). Christian women also served one another in many diverse ways (1 Timothy 5:2; Titus 2:3-5; Acts 9:36-43). Too, Christian women were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, and “house church” hostesses (Romans 16:1-16).[2]
She disagreed with my assessment, but not because the early church used women in its ministry. She said, “I disagree because we [i.e. women] are stupid.” I responded, “Who told you women are stupid?” She matter-of-factly responded, “we are.” I flatly denied her claim. I do not know who taught her this, all I know is that an entire life in the church has not changed her mind. Unfortunately, this has not been my only experience.
Many women in church ask me to speak on their behalf about ideas. Why? It is not because they are shy, but because they are “women” and women have no “right to share” ideas about the church. Perhaps it is not fair to put all the blame on the church. However, if the church truly embraces a culture of female dignity and equality as image-bearers of God, and equality as recipients of salvation (Gal 3:26-28), then it would be hoped that our sisters and fellow heirs in Christ should have a better perception of themselves as women in the church and society, and as wives and mothers in the home.
The issue at hand may be reduced to one word —power. Who has the power and who does not in the family, the church, in the world? Who should? Furthermore, what is power, and is it an innate quality or something else. The late Diana A. Garland (d. 2015), former dean of the Baylor School of Social Work at Baylor University, discusses power in detail within the sociological perspective of marital relationships and the impact of biblical interpretation in a chapter of her insightful volume, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide.[3]
In it, she provides a working definition of power, explores Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33-37, summarizes gender roles in the home within the American context of the last century, and offers her interpretations of certain key biblical passages (Gen 1-3; Col 3:18-19; Eph 5:21-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6; 1 Cor 7, etc). It is argued here that Garland has presented a cohesive argument regarding power and Jesus’ teaching about power, but they are not complete discussions. Furthermore, Garland presents a brief social-historical summarization of gender roles which reflects a hierarchy —a model of marital headship— that has a built-in “inferiority of women” point of view. Garland’s interpretive trajectory is built on this framework.
This is problematic because Garland generalizes this viewpoint as one that is shared across cultures and eras, which it is not; moreover, she proceeds an attempt to dispel the notion that the biblical references of marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. Garland offers an egalitarian framework, but although she raises important concerns, I believe a complementarian framework is a better-supported framework for matters of church work.
Definition of Power
Defining Power
In the first place, it is important to understand Garland’s point of view on power, gender roles, and hierarchy.[4] Garland provides a working definition of power that is helpful as a starting point for the present discussion and builds her discussion of power with M. Weber’s words in mind: “the probability that one person is able to exert his or her will despite resistance from others.” Such power may be an influence on another “whether or not that influence is resisted or even recognized by any of the actors.” From this it is suggested that power is not best thought of as a personal characteristic but instead as an influence from relational dynamics; thus, “power is,” Garland concludes, “a dynamic in all family relationships. We are always attempting to influence one another.”
While she regards power as ultimately “neutral” she points out that this relationship influence may be used for good (protect the vulnerable) or for ill (take advantage of the vulnerable).
Power and Gender Hierarchy
Garland paints a picture of a community and culture which shapes a power dynamic within the family that has historically given men more power in marriage than women.[5] Similarly, family theorists David H. Olson and John DeFrain suggest: “Tradition has dictated that considerable power go to the males in the family,” and add the caveat, “but women often have more power than they or anyone else admit.”[6] Still, Garland argues that culture and economics have played a historic role in reinforcing certain gender roles in the home and the workforce.
For example, Garland argues that in “traditional” homes husbands earned a living for the family, and gave their wives “an allowance,” and the wife, in turn, managed the emotional and interpersonal relationships of the home. As an extension of the prevailing culture, the church followed suit by emphasizing strong hierarchal gender roles where men had authority and power, while women were expected to submit and obey their husbands in keeping with a military-type paradigm of authority and submission.[7]
Vulnerable and Inferior Women
This unavoidably led to what Garland speaks of as a view of hierarchy—or headship—with a built-in “inferiority of woman” model. In this view, women are vulnerable, in need of protection, in need of structure, and in need of a man to insulate them from the attacks of Satan.[8] She cites Judith Miles as her “poster child” of this viewpoint, who argues in her own work, “I was to treat my own human husband as though he were the Lord, resident in our own humble home.”[9] Consequently, she would never question her husband on anything because such was to question the Lord himself.
Unfortunately, not only did some hold that women were theologically vulnerable, but some even advocated women were emotionally not “up to the task” of ministry. The rise of a liberation movement of women stems was therefore a response to this form of hierarchy model that held an implied inferiority view of women. As the woman’s liberation movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, the church, according to Garland, was threatened by the rise of demands by women for better (egalitarian) family relationships.
This is Garland’s starting point: a historically rigid view of hierarchy and gender roles in society and the home as reinforced by society and church, which not only implied an “inferior woman” model but in many cases overstated the headship of man.
Inferiority Illustrated
Garland’s portrayal should not be dismissed out of hand as it relates to the American church. The relationship between culture and church is not always easily discernible. The church has been affected by this type of “inferior women” hierarchy and has been reaping the whirlwind of this type of gender oversimplification. A few examples are in order.
Roy H. Lanier, Sr., in his Contending for the Faith column, “The Problem Page,” once responded to a letter from an elder’s wife.[10] Her problem focused on her husband’s mistreatment and undermining of her maternal role based on stereotypical female “problems” (emotional and biological). His dismissive treatment of her had now trickled down to their children. Lanier’s response was extensive and centered on a demonstration from Ephesians 5:21–33 that headship does not permit, nor condone, such treatment. Lanier argued, “it is obvious that her husband does not love her as Christ loves His church.”[11]
In F. Dale Simpson’s 1972 book on leadership, Simpson addressed the problem of women in the mission field: “most married missionaries have to overcome the resistance of their wives to go to a foreign mission field.”[12] Therefore, while
women are biologically stronger than men… are as intelligent as men and more careful about details… women are not as temperamentally suited for carrying out the great commission as men.
F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age
Simpson offers only his experience and his opinion about the temperament of women in the mission field.
Long-time missionary and educator, Earl D. Edwards, provides a correction based on several behavioral studies.[13] Edwards rightly points out that different genders tend to have differences that are present at birth and socially amplified; yet, such gender-specific roles (functions) are gender differences and are not a reflection of gender inferiorities or superiorities.[14]
The Struggle is Real
In short, Garland is addressing a real problem about church culture and power, and how it relates to women and wives. It strikes at the heart of a woman’s worth in the home and in the church, and in ministry in general. The church would be wise to hear her call to be alert to this problem. However, Garland does not reject a simply abusive hierarchal power within the marriage as expressed in certain stereotyped gender roles. She clearly rejects any hierarchy with a power structure within marriage—i.e., male headship is not biblical and therefore not normative biblical teaching.
Jesus’ Teaching on Power
In the second place, Garland moves toward a brief exploration of Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33–37 and uses it to frame her discussion of power dynamics within two broad Christian family contexts: gender roles and discipline.[15]
And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mark 9:33–37 ESV)
In this passage, Jesus’ illustrates and demonstrates the true use of power in light of the fact that the disciples had been arguing over “who was the greatest” (Mark 9:34).[16] The passage is, then, a corrective focused on “how his followers should use what they have to serve others rather than exalt themselves.”[17] Indeed, greatness is measured in service, in welcoming the smallest, least powerful, to the most vulnerable of society (Mark 9:35). Unfortunately, the disciples still did not retain the lesson since Jesus must correct them again (Mark 10:13–14); yet, Garland sees Jesus’ point as follows:
Rather than using your power to benefit yourself, use it to serve and benefit others. Order your life as Christians by protecting and caring for those most at risk of others abusing their power.[18]
Diana Garland, Family Ministry
Garland affirms that Jesus “used his own power to care for them” by completing the passion of the cross which he predicts three times (Mark 8:31; 9:30–31; 10:32–34). Power is never conserved for oneself but instead is the instrument to serve others. Elsewhere Jesus says,
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. (Luke 22:25–26).
Garland’s Miscue
What appears to be lacking in Garland’s treatment of power in Mark 9:33–37 is the broader literary concern with discipleship in the kingdom of God which begins in Mark 8:26 and ends in Mark 10:52.[19] This is not a small matter because, in Mark 8:34, Jesus frames the discussion of true discipleship: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
To follow Jesus means to submit to his plan, to submit to one’s role in the kingdom of God. “Discipleship… comes then with the commitment to humility and self-denial, rejection and suffering.”[20] The hard lesson the disciples continued to fail to appropriate is that the kingdom of God is at the disposal of others—especially the vulnerable—is the transformative experience of discipleship. Thus, power and one’s role are interwoven. Jesus demonstrates this by submitting to his role as God’s servant on the cross (Luke 22:42).
The matter is not simply about power and influence, for Mark 9:33–37 and Mark 10:13–16 teach that discipleship includes one’s submission to God’s transforming kingdom. It is not that Garland is wrong, but that her framing appears incomplete which, for the attention given to her work overall, is a significant oversight.
Overgeneralizations on Power and Gender Roles
In the third place, Garland generalizes that power and gender roles have been male-dominated across cultures and eras, which it is not.[21] This is an important drawback. The American church may be influenced by the surrounding culture and societal gender role expectations (even as traditional roles are presently eroding), but extrapolating from it that all cultures share a similar or comparable power structure along gender lines in families is problematic.
Cultural Anthropology
Not all cultures share the same expectations for gender roles. For example, Paul G. Hiebert, anthropologist and missionary, writes,
while most societies place some responsibility on the father for rearing the child, this is not universal. But the biological and social dependency of an infant on its mother is recognized in all social societies.[22]
Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology
It appears that certain biological relationships (mother-child) have built-within them influences that exert power on behaviors, and while they may manifest differently in various cultures, they do not imply inferiority or lack of equality. These relationships, do, however, create forms of power management that can create a displacement of power. This is a vital element to evaluate Garland’s overarching premise that power exercised implies the inferiority of one influenced by another.
The Psychology of Parental Authority
Psychologists David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall describe that within parent-child relationships authority, or, power, is observable in three parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative.[23] The extent to which parents try to control their children is, “the most heavily researched aspect of parenting.” Parents either “set rules and expect obedience” (authoritarian) which tends to affect their children’s social skills and self-esteem. Or, they “give in to their children’s desires” (permissive) which tends to develop children who are agreeable and immature. And, parents who “are both demanding and responsive” (authoritative) tend to produce children who are well-rounded emotionally and socially.
A parent’s use, abuse, or nonuse of power can tend to have drastically different outcomes. The presumed element here in these relationships is that a parent is in a hierarchal relationship with their children (cf. Eph 6:1-4), and within this relationship, power is being managed and applied. Garland’s overarching point is that this is in principle antithetical to Jesus’ teaching on power, but power and role are inseparable.
Family Power Management
Olson and DeFrain explore the wide range of “family power” management which is of significance here. According to them, “family power is the ability of one family member to change the behavior of the other family members.”[24] And while Garland concedes that “power” and “influence” are morally neutral, she approaches the subject of gender roles, power, and marriage from a morally negative point of view. Yet, as Olson and DeFrain point out, power —particularly family power— is a complex, dynamic interactive feature of a family system. Everyone in a family has power and everyone exerts it on the other member of the family. Even infants, according to Garland, have power. Yet, Garland suggests that a male headship hierarchy historically has mitigated women’s power in the marriage relationship, and therefore, empowers men and silences women, encouraging male power and delegitimizing female power and influence. Garland is not wrong if painting with broad strokes.
Marital Hierarchy
Garland’s argument that the removal of the hierarchy in male-female roles in marriage and family, and therefore must be applied to the church, is problematic.
Garland attempts to dispel the notion that the biblical references to marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. The creation account in Genesis 1–3 “provides,” according to Garland, “the primary foundation for a hierarchical understanding of husband-wife relationships.”[25] The order of creation does not prove male headship nor female submission; instead, Garland proposes that the pre-fall notation of “them” in Genesis 1:26–31 suggests shared dominion, shared identity, and a shared name. Moreover, the woman was not simply a “helpmeet” (KJV), but instead, is a soul-mate helper who is a “bone-and-flesh mirror image of the man who remains incomplete without her.”[26]
The Hebrew term ‘ezer certainly points to a “help” that comes from someone strong (Gen 2:20), as it is used in “warrior-esque” passages (Deut 33:29; Ezek 12:14), and is even used to describe God (Exod 18:4; Psa 121:1–2, 8). Thus, this is not a chain-of-command relationship where Eve is the weaker and more vulnerable of the two.
Garland provides a view of these passages that are cohesive and within reason of the evidence, but it is in Genesis 3:16, where the trouble lies. Garland argues that change after the fall is not a curse from God, but instead a pronouncement by God of how the relationship between Adam and Eve will now be.
In her view, God is being descriptive, not prescriptive. This is not an edict that imposes a new hierarchical relationship based on gender. Observe Garland’s argument that the fall
results in dire consequences for their relationship: the husband now shall rule over the wife. This new development implies that it was not what God had originally determined for their relationship. The dominance of the husband in Genesis 3:16 is described, not prescribed… it is the consequence of their joint disobedience.
Thus, the idea of hierarchical gender relationships is nothing but “a perversion of God’s intention in creation. The partnership has been destroyed. Sin disfigures the good God offered us.“[27] A variety of authors have offered a similar take in recent years. Linda L. Belleville, for example, is certainly at the forefront of pressing this interpretive option against the traditional view of male headship from Genesis 2–3.[28] Belleville, likewise affirms:
male rule finds no explicit place in the Bible’s theology at all. Adam’s sin is noted (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:20-22), as is Eve’s deception (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). But the man’s rule over the woman is not cited even once (not even for the husband-wife relationship). The simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT. The woman is nowhere commanded to obey the man (not even her husband), and the man is nowhere commanded to rule the woman (not even his wife).[29]
Belleville likewise suggests that Genesis 3:16 is a statement of the natural outcomes of the husband-wife relationship to follow due to the “fallen condition” of the world.
Garland, Headship, and the Biblical Narrative
It is the view taken here, in response to Garland––and to some degree Belleville––that Genesis 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 do provide the foundation for the traditional view of gender roles and should be regarded as normative.[30] The account of day six in Genesis 1 is a broad-picture passage. It speaks to the equality shared between man and woman as a distinct created order, or class, that is made in the image of God, and for this reason, have a human responsibility together to “have dominion… Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:26–28). But, when day six is given an expanded view in 2:4–25, the foundation for how human power is to be managed is explained—it is to be done in a relationship with someone just like Adam.
This power and influence are managed between husband and wife (2:20–24). And while the family power style is not explained in Genesis 2, Genesis 3:16 becomes an informative model of the way the husband-wife relationship exists outside the garden due to sin as God punished Adam (3:17–19) and the serpent (3:14–15), so God punishes Eve (3:16).
Problems with the Descriptive View
The argument that God is only describing how things will be, clearly undermines several theological themes which begin at this point. These are not mere descriptions of the fallen world.
First, God declared the serpent’s dust-filled days but also that he will feel the consequence of a crushed head by “the woman’s” offspring. This is not descriptive, this is a proclamation of Divine action and judgment upon the serpent, and salvation for humanity (John 16:11).
Second, God declared that Adam would face further hardship in the production of food and nourishment. Adam already understood work. He knew how to til and maintain the vegetation of the garden since day six (2:15). Whatever is forthcoming outside the garden for him is new and punishment for his sin. They are consequential.
And finally, God addresses Eve’s actions with further pain associated with childbearing and nuance to the relationship between her and her husband. When God says, “I will surely” do this and that, it must be interpreted as a consequence. The most pertinent here is the following, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16b).
The curse upon Eve is clearly speaking of a matter of power management within the husband-wife relationship. It is the same vocabulary and issue of power management in Genesis 4:7 with Cain and his personified anger who desired to control Cain. Cain must rule over its desire. Moreover, the language is found again in the Song of Solomon, where the bride turns this “curse” into a wedding vow, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me” (Song 7:10). Contrary to Belleville’s claim that the “simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT,” the Bible does recognize implicitly male headship.
Biblically Grounded Patriarchy is Never Condemned
Interestingly, Old Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke points out that of all the social injustices mentioned by the prophets of Israel, patriarchy is never mentioned among them. Following Abraham Heschel, he argues:
They challenged the injustices of their culture. The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered and awesome beliefs cherished as certainties, institutions endowed with supreme sanctity. They exposed the scandalous pretensions, they challenged kings, priests, institutions and even the temple.[31]
Waltke is probably correct when he argues that the problem that often affects interpretation is the definitions of concepts of patriarchy and equality brought to bear on the texts of Scripture. Eve was every bit Adam’s equal. They both shared the power and authority over the creation given to them by God. That power was to be worked out in their marriage in some form of family power style.
In Genesis and throughout the rest of the Bible, the family power structure to manage power is a hierarchy, with the husband as head of the wife and as Christ head of the church (Eph 5:23). Yet, such headship does not exist in a vacuum. A husband’s headship does not exist properly without being sacrificial, loving, or nourishing. Neither does it embrace a tyrannical hold on his wife. He is to be as self-sacrificing as Jesus was and is for the church. If the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church —his bride— then one should be careful in calling headship structure “a perversion of God’s intention” and a “partnership” destroyed as Garland has. For this reason, her work and view would be detrimental to family ministry.
“Power and Roles” is chapter 11 in Diana R. Garland, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 370–411.
Garland, Family Ministry, 370. All proceeding quotations in this paragraph are from page 370.
Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
David H. Olson and John DeFrain, Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths, 4th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 213. Power, control, and authority are continuously exercised in families, and struggles for personal power in families are exceedingly common.
Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
Garland, Family Ministry, 373.
Ibid.
Roy H. Lanier, Sr., “An Elder’s Wife has a Problem,” 20 Years of the Problem Page (Abilene, TX: Quality, 1984), 1:177–81.
Lanier, “An Elder’s Wife,” 178.
F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age (Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972), 121–22.
Earl D. Edwards, “The Role of Women in the Work and Worship of the Church,” Protecting Our Blind Side: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007), 255–57.
Edwards, “Role of Women,” 156–57.
Garland, Family Ministry, 371–72.
Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
Jovan Payes, “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak,” In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark, ed. Douglas Y. Burleson (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015), 376–77.
Payes, “Leaders Stand Up,” 376.
Garland, Family Ministry, 372–92.
Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 2d ed. (1983; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 197.
David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall, Psychology in Everyday Life, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014), 84.
Olson and DeFrain, Marriage and Families, 213.
Garland, Family Ministry, 374.
Garland, Family Ministry, 376.
Garland, Family Ministry, 376–77. Emphasis original.
See Linda L. Belleville, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, rev. ed., ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 21–103.
Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” 31.
Bruce K. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40; reprinted in Bruce K. Waltke, The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 457–75.
Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” 30.
Bibliography
Beck, James R. Editor. Two Views on Women in Ministry. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
Edwards, Earl D. Protecting Our “Blind Side”: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ. Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007.
Garland, Diana R. Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide. 2d edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.
Hiebert, Paul G. Cultural Anthropology. 2d edition. 1983. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Lanier, Roy H., Sr. 20 Years of the Problem Page. 2 volumes. Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1984.
Myers, David G., and C. Nathan DeWall. Psychology in Everyday Life. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014.
Olson, David H., and John DeFrain. Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths. 4th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Payes, Jovan. “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak.” Pages 375–81 in In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark. Edited by Douglas Y. Burleson. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015.
“And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7 ESV).
This time of year there are Christmas songs playing on the radio and carolers going about. A few years ago on the school bus, I drove as the children would sang Christmas songs also. One song was, “Away in a Manger.” That brought back memories of learning this song in Bible class when I was small. I’m not sure if it was sung around this time of year or not but it is a wonderful song.
If it wasn’t for Jesus being born then who would be the one to die for our sins? God gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16) so he could die for us on the cross.
The mother of Jesus was Mary, another very important person in this event. She was chosen by God and was visited by the angel Gabriel who told her she was going to have a son.
The scriptures tell us Jesus was laid in a manger because there was no place in the inn. Inn also means a lodging place. We do not know where he was born. It could have been the lower quarters of a dwelling or a stable. The place of his birth is not important.
The main significance was the manger. An angel of the Lord appeared to Shepherds who were tending sheep saying,
“And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).
Swaddling clothes were not the main significance.
The sign was the manger, a feeding trough where animals eat from. “And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger” (Luke 2:16). God took the lowliest manner of life to lay his Son’s head on, a manger, an animal feeding trough. He the Son of God, the King of kings did not lay in a crib like royalty.
As soon as the angel told the Shepherds the heavens opened up with praise,
“Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest!” (Luke 2:13–14).
What a glorious time, Christ the Savior humbled himself from Manger to Cross.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are four stories about Jesus that offer four broad perspectives from which they tell specific stories with a “powerful realism” about his ministry, teaching, healings, rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection.[1] This much is very clear. Questions emerge about the genre, historicity, chronology, stages of oral transmission, and history of literary dependence (e.g., “did Matthew and Luke rely on Mark?”), but at the heart of what the gospels are is Jesus and the stories told about him.
I have been reading and studying the four gospels for about a quarter-century, first, as a young Christian, then in my on and off again academic pursuits, and as a local preacher. During this time I’ve arrived at some important conclusions about them:
The genre of “gospel” is historical narratives comparable to the Greco-Roman bios.
The gospels are a blend of theology and history.
This blend of theology and history does not undermine their historical reliability.
The gospels provide a holistic view of Jesus, we cannot pick and chose what is the “authentic” Jesus.
But there was a time I was unaware of Rudolf Bultmann’s (1884–1976) demythologizing existential approach to redefining the meaning of the supernatural elements from the Gospels, and other approaches birthed by liberalism and modernism to reading them. It was a time when I was oblivious of the historical/grammatical-critical approach to studying them with the tools of form criticism, oral-tradition criticism, literary criticism, and so on. I’ve benefited deeply from the types of questions they raise and the kinds of answers they seek to provide.
This essay is not about this process, however. Instead, I am sharing what I can recall from my experience of reading the Gospels as “a knucklehead from the streets” searching for God. I want to share this personal journey while I can still remember how reading the gospel lead me to find God in Jesus Christ and how Jesus’ life and teachings made me want to follow him.
My Background
Here are my “credentials” for the spring of 1996 when I was seventeen: A high school dropout, a three-year freshman, most days starting with cutting school, drinking, smoking weed, and roaming the parks or streets (in that order). In the columns for attendance and absences on my report cards, my poor mom thought they made an error because the numbers looked swapped.
Then there was my street life in a gang. Street fights and violence, jumping over backyard fences running from the police (and dogs), plotting to hurt “heads” from other gangs, all-nighters, drug use, sex, and on and on it went. I am not proud of it, but I ran with my homies and we were “tighter than a glove,” I had my “street-cred,” I earned my stripes, and many can vouch for that.[2] They called me, “Gorilla.”
I grew up in Roman Catholicism. I was christened as a baby at St. Charles on South Van Ness in the Mission District of San Francisco, CA. Although my family is from the Mission, my Abuela brokered a deal so I could attend an Irish Catholic parochial K-8 school in Noe Valley. I wish I could tell you anything I learned in religion class to help me read scripture but I can’t. I can say, the rituals really stuck. I was an altar boy. I know the “Our Father,” the “doxology,” the two “Hail Marys,” parts of the Catholic Apostle’s Creed, and I can genuflect with the best of them. I did my confirmation. I prayed my penance prayers after confession.
I do not however recall ever being taught how to read Scripture, that was the priest’s job. So when I started reading the Bible years after leaving the Roman Catholic Church following 8th grade and diving right into drug use that summer with acid, I had no strategies to work with except my basic education and common sense. I was seventeen years old, getting sober, and walking away from vice and violence. I cried out to God in prayer on the corner of 24th and Mission Streets: “I don’t know how to do this, but I’m going to look for you…. Can you meet me halfway?”
Things did not immediately change for me outside of me stepping away from the streets until one night I went out with my boys. While I was scrambling to get my outfit right, I looked under my bed to find my shoes: Air Griffey Max 1. Behind my shoes, under my bed, was a small Gideon New Testament I had no idea was sitting there amidst the dust and trash. I took the discovery as God prodding me, in effect saying, “I just did my part, now you do your part and start reading it.” I grabbed it. Looked at it with a smirk. Looked upwards and said, “Okay, God, I’ll start reading it.”
I started reading the Gospels and after a few months of reading the stories about Jesus, in December 1996, just after Christmas, I gave my life to Jesus and submitted to baptism in an outdoor hot tub (to learn more read: “Leaving a Street Gang for Jesus“). Up to this point, I had not entered a church, I had not participated in any evangelistic study material outside of some creepy Jack T. Chick (1924–2016) “Gospel” Tracts. I simply read the Gospels and they were sufficient to guide me to obey God.
So here are some things I recall from this several-month journey as a street gang knucklehead,[3] with an eighth-grade education, working through a period of “getting clean.”
Reading the Gospels at Face Value
Let me be clear, I have always been a believer even when I left God and did my thing. If I ever was going to return to religion it was either going to be Christianity (starting point) or Islam (due to some of my closest Egyptian, Palestinian, and Persian friendships at the time). If God exists, then the miraculous is possible. When I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then, I believed the miracles contained in them were possible. I read them at face value.
Today, naturalism may be how many more approach a book like the Bible. For them, the door is closed to anything miraculous in the literal sense (i.e., the blind will never see, the cripple will never walk, demons are not exorcized, water is not turned to wine, the resurrection of a corpse does not happen). I did not approach the Gospels with this assumption. How could I, I called on God to find me!
Today, I recognize such an approach may be called a supernatural naivete (superstitious), but after studying worldview, the logical consequences of naturalism/materialism on ethics and morality, and dealing with the dismal outlook of living in an indifferent universe, keeping the door open to the possibility of the miraculous continues to make the most sense of the evidence in this world.[4]
Today, having worked through issues surrounding the critical study of the Scriptures, along with its anti-supernatural biases, its “mythology” and de-historicizing its narratives, it is clear that such a folklore Jesus would be a dead end. If the Jesus of the gospels does not exist then there are plenty of other historical fictional, or sci-fi, figures of virtue on their own “hero’s journey” I can enjoy instead. A fictional gospel reveals a powerless Jesus.
I believed God was working through Jesus in reality, and it led me to believe that his power could be applied to my own life in some healing way.
Jesus was Compassionate and Morally Firm
I had never read the gospels. I grew up on liturgy and tradition. Liturgy and tradition can be helpful as a tool for theological reinforcement, but it has significant limitations. For the most part, I just “knew”–as best I could know–Jesus loved me and died for me. But why, and why the cross? And is this what Christianity is all about, the story of an executed man? What about this has to do with me? And what would I learn about Jesus?
Again, I was, in the words of Ben Witherington, III, living a “Jesus haunted and biblically illiterate” life.[5] At the time, Jesus was the guy that died for me. I grew up reciting the “Stations of the Cross” every year in Mass. These 14 liturgical meditations commemorate the condemnation, death, and burial of Jesus (though I distinctly remember meditations of his resurrection).
So, I opened up that little New Testament with the small print to see where it would lead me.
I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was however truly surprised by the Jesus I was reading about. He drew me in. I was slightly expecting Jesus to be like the street preachers on my block. Those “bullhorn guys” yelling at the top of their lungs, telling us all that we are sinners, that we are all under the judgment of God, that regardless if you were eating donuts, McDonald’s, a burrito, going to the market, or selling weed, it didn’t matter because God hated us until we repented.
That is not at all what I found!
The Jesus of the gospels did not shy away from pointing to sin in people’s lives, but when he did so you knew he cared about you, you knew he had spent days with the sick to heal them, with the crippled making them walk, with the demon-oppressed liberating them of these evil spirits. He spent time with the kind of people the “really religious” types pushed aside, like the prostitutes and tax-collectors who wanted God.
In one instance, a woman from the city, known as a “sinner” (she likely had a bad reputation as a violator of the law of Moses), came to Jesus to show gratitude because he had forgiven her of her sins (Luke 7:47–48). The Pharisee who hosted Jesus in his home for dinner when this happened, reacted: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). She was undesirable, not to be engaged. Jesus however acknowledged her morally troubled past, accepted her, and forgave her of her sins.
Like a protector walking among his people, Jesus offered those that would listen to him a better way of life.
Again, Jesus healed a man who could not walk and had been that way for thirty-eight years (John 5:1–9). Later He ran into him when the man was under scrutiny by some Jews because it happened on the Sabbath. “Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you’ ” (John 5:14 ESV). Jesus heals the man, helps the man, forgives the man (implied), but is morally firm: sin no more.
I really needed and wanted a guide out of all the darkness and evil I was in. I knew I had dug a deeply immoral hole. I said to myself, “Jesus has gotta know my situation… and he knows what it’s going to take to get out of it.”
Meeting Jesus in the Gospels was a real turning point for me. I was moved. Reading that Jesus was the type of person that got to know you, your life, your darkness, and was not afraid to touch it as he embraced you, and then led you out of the sin in your life so you can live a liberated life before God. He was compassionate and morally firm.
Jesus’ Inspiring Inner Strength
The 1990s rap scene was flooded with “gangsta rap.” It was not the only form of rap, but like the “consciousness” of hip hop, this movement provided a peek into the mind and mental of street life. It spoke to what many of us were living through to different degrees. In 1995, the Westcoast hip-hop artist Coolio released the massively successful commercial single, “Gangsta’s Paradise” the theme song for the film, Dangerous Minds (Buena Vista Pictures). I recall me and my homies could not get enough of it. In fact, I called the hip hop station 106.1 KMEL on the request line just to hear it again. It was “the jam.”
It was more than just music, it was a mirror of our experiences. I say that because Coolio says what we all understood about respect in the street. Respect and honor were set on a hairpin trigger. When Coolio dropped this line, it was “gospel”:
But I ain’t never crossed a man that didn’t deserve it Me be treated like a punk, you know that’s unheard of You better watch how you talkin’ and where you walkin’ Or you and your homies might be lined in chalk
Coolio, “Gangsta’s Paradise”
This was not mere poetry this was street truth. Outside of joking around, you don’t cross your boys or disrespect people. Did it happen? Sure, but there were consequences.
So when I read the gospels, I brought this attitude with me. Call it machismo, call it pride, call it hubris. Somebody hurts your kin, the next time you see that person you confront them, punk them (embarrass them), and flex your muscle.
I was impressed with Jesus. When he interacted with the religious leaders of his day–the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees–who constantly poked at his school, his teaching, his methods, and his compassion, I stood amazed at how he handled these tests with an inner strength of truth and grace.
I definitely rallied behind him when Jesus flipped over the moneychangers’ tables at the temple, they had turned the place into a “den of robbers.” That language made sense to me. But Jesus was mild compared to what power he clearly had.
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold access to God, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” (Luke 19:45–46)
He made a statement. He didn’t end them. That’s the difference.
But for every other challenge, every criticism, every rejection, every attempt on his life, every time Jesus was made out to be crazy, a fraud, a violator of the Scripture, or liable as an ally of Satan, Jesus responded with words to clarify, words to unite, words bluntly stating the obvious, and words that demonstrate the faulty logic, scriptural inconsistency, or the like.
Basically, Jesus was full of zeal but kept his cool nonetheless (John 2:17).
Consider the fact that the gospels report that Jesus could walk on water, make water into wine, give people their sight back, restore the skin of leprosy, and revive the dead.
A man with that kind of power could be tempted to abuse it, but as the temptation in the desert points out, Jesus’ power did not outpace his character (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–12). When Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans, he rebuked his disciples for suggesting he retaliate with fire from the sky.
And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village. (Luke 9:54–56)
Jesus showed strength in order to protect people, in order to speak truth to error, and authenticity to hypocrisy. I was captivated by his ability to hold it together when he was betrayed by Judas, when he was lied about in his Jewish “trial” before Caiaphas, when he was publically humiliated by the Romans, publically rejected by the Jewish mob with their frenzied chant, “crucify him, crucify him.” Jesus clearly stated he had the power and authority to be delivered by an overwhelming show of heavenly force (John 18:1–19:16a), but he did not.
I stood in awe at Jesus’ character. Jesus was dismissed by those who knew the Scriptures until the only way they thought they could silence him was to kill him. Here’s the part that really put this strength in context: Jesus predicted his betrayal, his rejection, and his death. John foreshadowed this in his prologue: “He [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (1:12). He walked right into the fire.
I never heard of anyone who lived like that. Jesus was street-level “hard” (tough) in a way I had never seen. Jesus’ inner strength told me I could trust him. That’s the point.
In describing Abraham Lincoln, Robert G. Ingersol (1833–1899), was recorded in Wisconsin State Journal (16 January 1883) saying,
If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power. Any man can stand adversity — only a great man can stand prosperity. It is the glory of Abraham Lincoln that he never abused power only on the side of mercy. [Applause]. He was a perfectly honest man. When he had power, he used it in mercy.[6]
Robert Ingersol, Wisconsin State Journal (1883)
Whether that was always true of Abraham Lincoln, I’ll never know. But I trusted what I saw in Jesus’ use of power and in the realism of the stories of the gospels. I needed to trust him. I grew to trust him. I trust him still. And in the quarter-century of serving him, he has done no wrong.
Spending Time with Nobodies
In the 1991 urban drama, Boyz n the Hood (Columbia Pictures), director and writer John Singleton (1968–2019) presented a raw depiction of urban violence, racism, and gang culture as the backdrop for the coming of age stories of a group of childhood friends, notably two brothers (“Doughboy” and Ricky) and their close friend Tre. The impact of drugs and violence on the black community of South Central Los Angeles is seen as we follow these friends who grow up fast to survive–only to become victims of their own turbulent world.
After a confrontation between Ricky–a high school football star on track to receive a college scholarship– and a local gangster, the matter escalates into Ricky being gunned down in an alley while coming home from the liquor store. Doughboy and his own crew retaliate that night by killing the gunmen and his posse for killing his brother. In the next scene, the next morning, Doughboy comes out of his home, sells some crack as he crosses the street, and sits with his friend Tre.
In one of the most memorable moments in the film Doughboy says:
Turned on the TV this morning. Had this s— on about how we’re living in a violent world. Showed all these foreign places. How foreigners live and all. I started thinking, man. Either they don’t know… don’t show… or don’t care about what’s going on in the ‘hood. They had all this foreign s—. They didn’t have s— on my brother, man.
“Doughboy” in Boyz n the Hood
Although I was twelve when the movie came out, the movie has the proven realism of its era. What Singleton is voicing through Doughboy is that even though there is violence in the street of our communities, nobody cares about it. It is happening over there, not in our backyard. We put a spotlight on global violence but not in our own communities. We know it happens and the police are doing “something” about it. But it is not worth talking about or getting involved with.
Here’s my point: street life is a very different world. No matter what your starting point is, once you commit to it you live a life on the fringe. The police are not your friends. You can easily lose trust with your own people. You’re the boogeyman parents warn their kids about, “come home soon so nothing happens to you.” You are the reason they need to be careful.
For example, one day I was detained with a group of “us” by the San Francisco Police Department on 24th Street. Officer Callejas who put the twist on me was the father of a childhood friend. A bunch of us were thrown into a “patty wagon,” taken to the Mission station on Valencia Street. You really get a sense of how you are thought of in situations like this. Any mistreatment was seemingly justifiable because we were thugs who likely assaulted a little boy for his shoes. No one really cares when you are a thug. I get why, but it is still the truth.[7] We were probably guilty of something and the pain was just part of the business of the street: we felt like nobodies cause we were treated like nobodies.
Liberal New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan (1934–) once described the “kingdom of God” Jesus focuses on as “a kingdom of nuisances and nobodies.”[8] That description really gets the point across. Crossan points to the fact Jesus spends a lot of time with the kinds of people the “clean” religious people would not associate with. The tax-collectors, the prostitutes, the sinners, the Gentile-tainted, the Samaritan, the lepers, the poor, etc., are all the kinds of people Jesus spend time with at the expense of criticism. This really spoke to me.
German theologian, Helmut Thielicke (1908–1986), really puts into words what I saw in Jesus:
[A]n ineffable love radiated from him, a love that quite obviously attracted from their usual haunts the very people whom nobody else cared for: people with loathsome, repulsive diseases, sinners who cowered before the contempt of society, the dejected and dismayed who normally concealed their misery from the eyes of others.[9]
Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father (1959)
Reading how Jesus ate with sinners just made me think that there was hope that he would share a seat with me at the dinner table. That he would come to my house and eat with me and my friends. Jesus put to those that criticized him for eating with sinners. He said,
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:31–32)
Would Jesus visit with me so he could heal me? I believed he would. He did. He continues to do so.
I am always amazed at the power of grace that allows us to be “other than we are.” God’s grace and forgiveness have empowered me to live a different life. No story Jesus told tells it better than the parable of the two sons:
“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. (Matt 21:28–32)
Fringe people have an opportunity to be at the heart of what Jesus does. I wanted that.
Jesus Taught about Loving People
Sometimes I would leave the Mission and go with some of my fellas to the Tenderloin District of San Francisco at night. We had a friend with a car and we had a friend with a shop out there. The “TL” is a neighborhood district right in the heart of downtown. It’s the part of the city no one wants to get lost in, but so many people do. Legend has it that the name goes back to the largest bribes and police corruption, big cuts. In reality, it’s the home of “outcasts and outlaws, but it has also served as a welcoming home to the downtrodden and out of luck.”[10] It has been that way for a long time.
You always had to be on your guard in the streets but it felt that way even more so in the TL. I got into plenty of fights over misunderstandings. Sometimes you had to “knuckle up” to prove your point. Every now and then, something would happen that would disarm you. One time a parade of prostitutes hurried single-file by me into the back of the pizzeria I was eating at because the police were cracking down outside. That stuff makes you want to lose your appetite. Sadly, I eventually saw a few girls I went to high school with, out there in the TL “walking” the streets.
One situation really struck me. One night I watched a young girl call home to tell her folks that she was not coming back. A pimp had flipped her, she was gonna become of his girls. I can see her standing in a MUNI bust stop phone booth, surrounded by a bunch of guys as she said the following words:
Momma, don’t worry, I’m fine and I’m gonna make a lot of money…. No, tell dad I’m gonna be fine… he’s gonna take care of me, I’m going to be just fine… No, I’m not telling you where I am… he’s gonna take care of me…
Jane Doe calling home
“No, girl,” I said to myself, “No, he’s not.” You learn to get cold to things like this. I didn’t want to get played but if someone else did, that was on them. This moment, though, would eventually make me really question what it is I was becoming. One thing was certain, I was losing my humanity piece by piece I just did not know it yet.
So when I asked God to find me, and I started reading the Gospels, I learned that Jesus was all about loving his neighbor. What surprised me the most, and continues to be the challenge, is how Jesus applies the “love your neighbor” ethic. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:43–48)
When Jesus applies Leviticus 19:18 (“you shall love your neighbor as yourself”) to life, he said my neighbor was not just people I know but even people I hate, and people that hate me. That was a bitter pill to swallow. Looking back, even now, I have learned that this love even protects the vulnerable people in society (the poor, the blind, the deaf; cf. Lev 19:13–14). In a world where hate and anger were the fuel that drove my choices, I thought about how different my choices were going to have to be. I realized that I could not follow Jesus and stay in the gang, that I could not be in a “me vs. them” world. Most of the time I did not even know who the people I hated were.
I was starting to see that the world could be different. That I could be different. God was good to me despite all the things I had done. He gave me the sun, the rain, the wind and rain, different escapes from certain death, and my close trusted cholos over Frisco. I did not know it then, but I had just opened my heart to a very different way of living. Of all the things that changed my life nothing so drastically changed it as learning to love my enemies, people who hurt me, people I had come to hate, and learning to have grief and shame for the joy I got out of hurting people.
Here’s another significant point, Jesus was not teaching some kind of fluffy love. It is a rugged love. It is a love that is independent of what others do. We wait for people to love us and never hurt us, in order for us to love them back. That’s not the kind of love Jesus talks about. We treat people with love even when it might cause hatred, persecution, or attempts on your life. Jesus went through all of that when he lived out God’s love by dying on the cross for all humanity.
That type of love motivated me to learn to forgive those who hurt me, molested me, abandoned me, fought me, or betrayed me; positively, I learned to feed hungry people, give money to needy people, to care for those that struggle, treat people with kindness and patience. Most importantly, I learned to forgive and love myself. Remember, Jesus said the second great commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39)–as yourself, as myself. It was a new day in my life when I received Jesus’ words to love my neighbor.
Jesus inspired me to look at loving others in such a way that challenged what it means to love, who are the others and even to love myself.
Ready for the Next Step
Reading the Gospels lead me to take the next step to follow Jesus. While I no longer remember how each Gospel spoke to me, I remember the example of Jesus already making a big impression on me. I also began to see how it affected other people when I quoted Jesus or imitated Jesus, often without even telling them I was. A homeless lady on the BART even asked me, “are you a Christian?”[11] I didn’t even know what that meant. She had to tell me: someone who follows Jesus. I was that “unchurched.”
Still, I was still wrestling with drinking, smoking cigarettes and weed, and I was building my fortitude against sleeping with anyone. Over the months of reading the Gospels, I desired but I didn’t exactly know what the next step was. After all, I had not entered a church during this time. There was no preacher or evangelistic crusade that was guiding my journey. It was quite literally, me and the Gospels, and me and my demons.
I remember talking to Mormon missionaries at this time and they said, “Cry out to God for an audible answer that the Book of Mormon was true, and you will hear him.” I spent many nights crying out to God in tears, scared that I was so close but so far. Never heard a voice. I remember receiving a bunch of creepy Chick tracts that told me to give my heart to the Lordship of Jesus or I would be roasted by Satan in Hell. I wandered into books and advice from outsiders.
My big brother, however, brought me back to the Gospels. “Have you read the Gospels?,” he asked. “Yes,” I responded. “What does Jesus tell his disciples when he sends them out at the end of Matthew?” I opened the text and it was right there:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 16–20)
That told me everything I needed to know and do next. I knew I wanted to be a disciple, this text told me how. I knew I wanted to submit to the Lordship of Jesus, this text told me how. I knew I wanted to keep having a relationship with Jesus even though he was not “here” anymore, this text showed me he was still with us. And I wanted to still study under Jesus, and he showed me that it was in the teaching of the disciples. So, I knew I would have to change my life and I made that commitment in a personal hot tub a few days after Christmas in December 1996. The “Gorilla” was “gone” and Jovan was reborn.
Endnotes
See Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1984), 132. I highly recommend Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007).
As you may see in this essay, rap lyrics speak for me at times and so it is here. In Eazy-E’s comeback response album, It’s On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa (Woodland Hills, CA: Ruthless, 1993), to Dr. Dre’s The Chronic album (Beverly Hills, CA: Death Row Records, 1991), the song “Real Muthaphukkin G’s” features Dresta who says, “I did dirt, put in work, and many n—- can vouch that; So since I got stripes, I got the right to rap about [gangsta life].” I wasn’t the worst thug out there, and I can only speak for myself, but I did my thing.
I use the “knucklehead” phrase because that’s what Mr. Cee from the RBL Posse said in his rap rhyme: “I’m just a knucklehead from the streets, All I want is a mic and some of that funky a– beat” (“A Part of Survival,” A Lesson to be Learned [Oakland, CA: In a Minute Records, 1992]).
One should read the opening chapter of William Lane Craig’s The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1981; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000). Consistently, atheist Richard Dawkins wrote, “…if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life [New York: Basic Books, 1995], 132–33; bold added).
The actual quote is, “In America we live in a Jesus-haunted culture that is biblically illiterate. Jesus is a household name, and yet only a distinct minority of Americans have studied an English translation of the original documents that tell us about Jesus, much less read them in the original Greek. In this sort of environment, almost any wild theory about Jesus or his earliest followers can pass for knowledge with some audiences, because so few people actually know the primary sources, the relevant texts, or the historical context with which we should be concerned” (What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History–Why We Can Trust the Bible [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006]).
I can only think of one organization that was brash enough to try to disrupt our comfort with street life, and that was RAP. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of encounters.
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 61–84. While I am critical of many of Crossan’s proposals about the historical Jesus and his trance and mythic theory of the resurrection appearances of Jesus, he rings true here. See my, “Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?“
Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper, 1959), 159.
BART stands for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. It was a subway/train system that connects various cities in the San Francisco/Oakland/East Bay/North Bay areas.
biblicalfaith.online 