Come You Sinners

"Base things of the world hath God chosen."

— 1 Corinthians 1:28

Walk the streets by moonlight, if you dare, and you will see sinners then. Watch when the night is dark, and the wind is howling, and the picklock is grating in the door, and you will see sinners then. Go to the jail, and walk through the wards, and mark the men with heavy over-hanging brows, men whom you would not like to meet at night, and there are sinners there. Go to the reform school, and note those who have betrayed a rampant juvenile depravity, and you will see sinners there. Go across the seas to the place where a man will gnaw a bone upon which is reeking human flesh, and there is a sinner there. Go where you will, you need not ransack earth to find sinners, for they are common enough; you may find them in every lane and street of every city, and town, and village, and hamlet. It is for such that Jesus died. If you will select me the grossest specimen of humanity, if he be but born of woman, I will have hope of him yet, because Jesus Christ is come to seek and to save sinners. Love has selected some of the worst to be made the best. Pebbles of the brook grace turns into jewels for the crown-royal. Worthless dross he transforms into pure gold. Redeeming love has set apart many of the worst of mankind to be the reward of the Saviour's passion. Effectual grace calls forth many of the vilest of the vile to sit at the table of mercy, and therefore let none despair.

By that love looking out of Jesus' tearful eyes, by that love streaming from those bleeding wounds, by that faithful love, that strong love, that pure, disinterested, and abiding love; by the heart and by the bowels of the Saviour's compassion, we conjure you turn not away as though it were nothing to you; but believe on him and you shall be saved. Trust your soul with him and he will bring you to his Father's right hand in glory everlasting.

If you and I have been redeemed by his love through faith what should our answer be to others? Answer: faithful acts of love.

Have I Asked the Right Questions?

At a recent regional fellowship meeting within my denomination the ministers were discussing whether Christians baptized in water in a different denomination have been properly baptized - do they need to be baptized again. This is not a question that we're alone in asking.

In 2007 Pope Benedict caused a stir by claiming Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism were not full churches of Jesus Christ because they did not submit to their sacraments. Check out the fourth point of the Catholic doctrine of "Dominus Iesus" (which is what he was quoting):

Those Churches which do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome [insert any hierarchical leadership structure here] remain united to the Catholic Church by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Catholic Church.

I don't want to condemn the RCC too harshly because many Christian religious sects, including my own, make similar claims (some more overtly than others). Does any Christian sect have a right to require a Christian to be re-baptized? If so, under what circumstances? I will not answer these questions here, but will address more the inclination of humanity in many contexts to create silos and to categorize others.

What is the motivation for setting this kind of requirement? (Acts 19 is probably the only text that can be used to justify the action and it does not appear that it was so much Apollos' spiritual condition and understand as much as it was those who were baptized). For now I will set aside Acts 19 and think about the root of why Christian leaders in general may tend to set up this kind of dogma.

How did Jesus address situations where people were working outside of what he was doing? He didn't seem to put the same emphasis on these things as Christians have for the last 1700 years. In the passage below notice how closely tied personal supremacy is with forbidding people or invalidating others work for God:

Mark 9:33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receives me: and whosoever shall receive me, receives not me, but him that sent me.
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he follows not us: and we forbad him, because he follows not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Does this not seem to indicate that Christ tolerates Christian laborers that do not necessarily gather together? Can there not be disparate groups of disciples working on the Kingdom project? Of course, I would have rather gathered with the disciples. But it is interesting in this chapter that the disciples were not able to cast out a devil for which they were reprimanded by Christ (Mark 9.18,19); but the guy they tried to shut down was apparently having success (v.38). It's funny that they couldn't cast out the devils, tried to stop another from doing it, and then sat around fighting about who was the greatest! Some things never change.

Baptism, like all phases of salvation, is dependent on the individual relating and responding to God not necessarily the ministry (I've known people who have been saved under the ministry of a disreputable man – Baker, Swaggart, et al ad nauseum). Of course a person cannot believe without hearing, but ultimately it is the person hearing, believing and responding. A servant of God is to speak and let God do the rest. I recognize that ministers within the Baptist, Methodist, Assemblies of God, etc., preach their revelation and people are saved and do receive the H.S. So, how can I take the act of baptism in water and say that it is invalid if administered by one of them? Christ was not as fastidious in his dispensing of his Spirit – he pours his Spirit onto people under every Christian endeavor. I want to be reasonable – Christ is less concerned about the ministry than I have been. He pours out his Spirit on more people outside my denomination 1,000,000:1 and I have the audacity to demand that these are re-water baptized!!! The current reality of the Christian world is that it is expanding at an unprecedented rate. There are now more Spirit-filled Christians in Africa and Asia than in all Europe and US. Instead of asking whether I'm the greatest I should be seeking the Lord for more faith to spread his vision for his new creation.

21st Century Church Leadership - Maybe

Over the last few decades the western world has experienced a cultural shift unseen in the history of man (well, since the Enlightenment). This post is concerned with how leadership within my church fellowship, though delayed, should now respond to these changes and how these changes in leadership style are more likely to build spirituality in those who follow. The history of western man is broken down into ancient history, the Middle Ages (Medieval times), Modern (Enlightenment, Industrial age, Reformation), and the Post-Modern age (postmodernism). The radical cultural shift being experienced by the present generation is a result of the seismic rejection of the modern age by the latest generation. The modern age has many characteristics, but the following are most relevant to leadership: Modernism holds that 1) the world can be transformed by the ingenuity and intervention of mankind; 2) the political institutions and corporate conglomerates have a patristic mandate to manage the goods, capital and people who live beyond their local area; and 3) that the increased complexity of the political and economic environments require increased specialization and division of labor. The overall perspective of leaders in this era can be summed up by Machiavelli's famous statement in The Prince that, for a sovereign, "... it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking" (The Prince, chapter 17). There are many other characteristics of modernity, but these are central to understanding the pressures and conflicts currently being experienced within my church and our broader fellowship.

Leaders of the modern age took on the role of a father – making decisions for and sometimes thinking for others. Society accepted these roles as natural. Fortunately for some groups (like mine) their leaders were benevolent and kept the best interests of the people in mind (though intent does not always meet target). The complexity of society grew and the modern leadership model was found insufficient to handle the diversity of questions and problems. Many church leaders were expected (remember culture demanded this of its leaders) to understand the Old and New Testaments, to have perfect understanding of all doctrines, to manage the financial aspects of a church, to provide marriage and family counseling, and such like. Most leaders across Christendom could not handle the pressure and either changed their model of leadership, failed to provide the best possible leadership, or undermined their leadership through a self-inflicted wound (usually by committing adultery) - read Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership: The Paradox of Personal Dysfunction by Gary McIntosh and Samuel Rima for the statistics on the failures of leaders caused by unrealistic expectations.

A top-down hierarchy is not a sanctified leadership model – it has been, in reality, borrowed from the business, political and religious organizations of the modern age. In my opinion a hierarchical leadership model is not biblical – though, as stated above, it can have good results if the leader is benevolent. Any traction moderns feel between the biblical doctrine of leadership and what we've implemented is a result of anachronistic thinking. We've imposed leadership perspectives of the modern culture onto the words we read in scripture. Everyone does this to some degree in an attempt to communicate (whether written or personal). We employ a filter of presuppositions by which we interpret the words. I believe biblical leadership is servant leadership and it does not rule by compulsion or intimidation, but like God's example, it is a leadership that hopes for response. God does not come out of the clouds in full display of his glory and say, "believe in me I have phenomenal cosmic powers"; man would be disintegrated. Instead he influences us with the gentle leadings of his Spirit. The leaders of the restored church will be leaders who influence for results and never use the 'easy button' of control and domination.

Our churches are part of this world (not the worldliness of the world) and as such we are influenced by the culture (culture is not inherently bad). Whether we think so or not the culture works its way into our thinking. We are now being lead by men and women who were born and raised at the height of the modern age and they are leading men and women who were reared in postmodernism. Modern thinking is still, however, very much alive even in the latest generation depending on their exposure to outside influences. One aspect of postmodernism, in relation to leadership, is the collapse of centralized power structures and cultural hierarchies and the distribution of power and cultural formations across a plurality of leaders. As a thinker influenced by both perspectives I can see the advantages of both and I am particularly fond of the later. But, we are in danger of handing the exact same authority and power to a different group – maybe a less qualified group in the pursuit of change. Putting hipper, tech-savvy leaders in charge of the church is not any better than having the "un-hip, captains of industry in charge of the world". The postmodern leadership-by-committee leaders may be very nice people and they may even have the best of intentions, but they are just as dangerous as the preceding kingdom of CEOs.

What is the answer? I'm not sure. But, as long as leaders take either of the two extreme approaches our fellowship will not have the impact on the world it desires to have, because power (control) in the hands of many or few will be rejected by most. God does not control us, but uses divine influence. He has put into our hands, through his Spirit, the power to choose him by serving others. He has diffused his power by distributing it to all who call on his name. This distribution of power could be a hint to how we should work as leaders both in and among our various assemblies. When a person lives and behaves based on self-determination (free will) God is glorified. He created us to serve him from our heart and when leaders short-circuit that relationship by inserting themselves as a mediator then God is robbed of having his image-bearing creation serve him on their own. Leadership is dangerous and self-determination can be destructive, but both are necessary and should be held in tension (through prayer). Let's not seek the easiest solution. The reward is rich if we persist while seeking the road less travelled and God will be glorified if we seek his will in these matters – whatever the answer.

Next two blogs – 'How the devil made it through the flood' and 'Why spiritual men should wear green leprechaun hats'.

 

Exile and Exodus

The themes of exile and exodus recur throughout the history of Israel. They became a single primary theme woven together throughout the words and warnings of the law, the oracles of the prophets, and the psalms of the Psalter. The theme was carried over into first century Judaism. The gospels used the exodus theme to identify the ministry of Jesus with the eschatological fulfillment of the new exodus promised by the prophets (Mk 1.2, 3; cf. Isa 40.3). John completes the canon by comforting the persecuted church with the hope that God would in the end vindicate his people by permanently delivering them from exile.

The drama of exile and exodus for the people of God began in Eden. Eden was not simply something that happened; but it was a poetic, biblical example of what happens. At creation Adam and Eve were given dominion over all things – including all the "beasts of the field" (Gen 1.28). In Eden, however, Adam and Eve rejected their relationship with God and because of this experienced the true exile of fear, guilt, alienation, and domination. When the first couple's crime against God was revealed they fled from him. The result was expulsion from Eden and separation from God (Gen 3.22-24). Adam and Eve were cursed, yet, their curse was not without remediation. Eve was going to have a child that would someday, somehow rectify their alienation from God and crush the one who had seized dominion.

Although the Cain story begins with a hopeful tone, "I have produced a man with help from the Lord" (Gen 4.1). This child of Eve would not prove to be the one who would bring deliverance from exile. The exile theme continued to play out when Cain opened the door to sin and slew his brother (Gen 4.5-8). He was consigned to some place of wandering east of Eden (4.16). The result of Cain's sin against his brother was exile, yet, in his separation he was protected by God (Gen 4.15).

In this Eden-Cain drama there is something related in the sins of the actors – the influence and power of a beast. Adam and Eve were deceived by a lying serpent and Cain was captivated by a murderous beast. So, the exile of the first family resulted from their abdication of their governing role over the beasts and instead becoming subjugated to them. As the story of the first family unfolded through the Hebrew Scriptures it became apparent that they were a prototype for the people of God through all time. The nations, also, to which they would be exiled, would be compared to wild beasts. Ezekiel, for example, would come to refer to Pharaoh as a 'dragon that lays in the midst of his rivers' and Daniel would liken the four key nations which dominated Israel to four great beasts which came up from the sea (cf. Ezek 29.3; Dan 7.3). The dominion of the nations over the people of God seems to be a deliberate echo from the stories of Eden and Cain by the prophets to reflect the unnatural relationship of the people of God to the animal-like, godless nations throughout the ANE.

Following after the pattern of Adam; his descendants failed to honor God. Their rebellion, displayed through sexual deviance and violence, led to the flood (Gen 6. 1-4, 11). The flood became a kind of 'new creation' where God brought the waters of chaos under control and gave man a fresh start. This fresh start is inferred by the "idyllic but unreal" city in the plains of Shinar, one in which the people were settling down, working together, and with everyone speaking the same language. What appeared to be ideal, keeping the model image of Eden in mind, would soon reveal latent rebellion against God's command to Noah and his descendents to fill the earth. What appeared to be a harmless action, that is, settling in one place to prevent themselves from being "scattered over the face of the earth", would actually be an act of rebellion; one which would attempt to impede "divine momentum" and thwart the plan of God (Brodie, Dialogue, 202). The confusion of languages that occurred in the city of Babel was really a scattering of the people throughout the world. Brodie compares God's confusion of the tongues and resultant scattering of the people to the "expulsion of the man and the woman" from Eden. The scattering of Adam and Eve and the scattering of Cain and his family was now experienced by all the families of the earth.

Sometime during the third millennium B.C.E. a man named Abraham was commissioned by God to leave the land of the Chaldeans, the land of his nativity, and travel to a new land. God was going to give him and his posterity this land as a base of operations to fulfill their charge; a commission to bless all the nations (Gen 12.1-7). Now, after a long season of separation, God was going to act to recover his scattered people and end their exile. He was going to use one man and his descendent(s) to do it. The curse of conception that was spoken to Eve was being felt by one of her daughters. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was barren. God had made Abraham a promise that he was going to have many children, 'like the sands of the sea and numbered like the stars of heaven' (Gen 22.17), and that they were going to bless all the nations from their new land. Eventually, the curse was overcome and Abraham had a son. Within four generations the descendants of Abraham and Sarah numbered 70 (Ex 1.5). At the end of Abraham's life, however, the only land he possessed was that in which he was buried. His exile, which he participated in with the whole human race, had come to an end, his exodus was complete, and he was at rest.

The descendents of Abraham, the children of Israel, didn't always fulfill their commission from God to bless others. They were guilty of lying (Gen 37.31, 32), cheating (Gen 27.35), murdering (Gen 34.25), and committing adultery (Gen 35.22). At one point Genesis records that they stunk before the tribes of Canaan because of their behavior (34.30). Their behavior contributed to them living outside the land God promised (Gen 47.1). Exile from their promised land, from a theological perspective, is presented throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as the death of everything that gave identity to the life of Israel. Although Israel was not living in the land promised to Abraham they did see one promise of God fulfilled; that is, "the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them" (Ex 1.7). Israel's rapid growth caused Pharaoh to implement plans of genocide – plans that included throwing all male babies into the Nile River, subjecting the men and women to hard slave labor, and inflicting on them pitiless abuse (Ex 1.13, 22). Despite Pharaoh's efforts the people continued to increase and spread throughout the land.

During this critical time of oppression and enslavement for Israel a woman became pregnant and had a son. In an attempt to save his life she laid him in a floating basket and placed it in the river. The baby was found by the daughter of Pharaoh and drawn from the Nile before he was drowned. The child was called Moses; Egyptian for "drawn out". It is only after the naming of the boy that "there is a momentary glimpse into a hope and a future" for the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage. He was called the son of Pharaoh's daughter (Heb 11.24). At some point, and the Exodus narrative of his early life is not explicit, he began to associate with his enslaved Hebrew brothers. For example, when Moses saw an Egyptian master beating a Hebrew slave he delivered him by killing the Egyptian and hiding his body in the sand. On another occasion he saw two Hebrew men in a quarrel and felt compelled to arbitrate. His actions brought the wrath of Pharaoh, but, for a second time he escaped.

The book of Exodus builds on the concepts mentioned above of oppression, exile, and deliverance. Childs compares the story of Moses in Egypt with the story of Moses in Midian by pointing out that at the end of the first account Moses flees to Midian (2.15) where he finds, in the second story, the priest of Midian (2.16). In the first we see the Egyptian oppressing the weak (2.11) and in the latter we see Moses called and Egyptian delivering the weak from the oppressor (2.18). Moses' escape from Pharaoh became a form of exile; after all, Moses claimed to be an 'outsider in a strange land' when he named his first son (Ex 2.22). Because of Pharaoh he was being forced to live in exile from his people.

After fleeing for his life and living forty years in exile; God spoke to Moses in a meeting that would change the course of human history. Because of his faithfulness to the promises he made to Abraham; God was going to act to relieve the suffering of his people in Egypt (Ex 3.6, 7, 10). His actions would lead to the deliverance of his people and eventually the world. Moses' original attempt to deliver was a failure, but after his encounter with God he had a new mission and new authority. Moses, the shepherd of Midian, was now to lead the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt. The result of their deliverance was going to be the inheritance of their own land, a good and broad land that "flowed with milk and honey" (Ex 3.8). This Exodus from Egypt was essentially an end of exile and a return to Eden.

Moses' initial confrontation with Pharaoh was met with obstinate refusal to allow the people to leave and worship God (Ex 5.1, 2). Following the narrative of God displaying his power over Pharaoh and staking his claim as sovereign over the lives of all men; Pharaoh released the people. On the eve of their exodus the people of God sat calmly waiting for his deliverance while those who rejected God received his justice (Ex 12.1-32). This night would be remembered and commemorated in the feast of the Passover. This feast would forever remind Israel that God would vindicate his people and deliver them from exile.

Pharaoh was not content, however, and pursued the Israelites to the Red Sea. By an act of divine power, reminiscent of God's domination over the chaotic primordial waters, the waters of the Red Sea were driven back and subdued by an east wind and Israel was allowed to cross. In a second millennium Babylonian creation myth the god Marduk, with the help of the north wind, defeated Tiamat the sea monster and her accompanying host of serpents. In dialog with these myths the book of Exodus reflects the same kind of victory. The God of Abraham showed that he was a faithful warrior king and deliverer of his people when he defeated their enemies and when he brought them alive through the midst of the waters (Exodus 14, 15). God had carried his people on "eagles' wings" and brought them safely to himself (Ex 19.4). The Exodus from Egypt was complete, but the exile would not truly end until the people were safe in their new land.

The history of the nation detailed above and culminating in the exodus would live on in the memory of Israel for hundreds of years; being perpetuated through tradition and ritual. During that time the story would be a prime motivator and an interpretive key in the minds of Israel's prophets in their effort to help the people understand their circumstances. The nation would have many highs and many more lows – most notably the Assyrian exile of the northern tries of Israel and the later exile of Judah into Babylon. Despite these desperate times the people were given hope through prophets who were inspired to speak with new and "imaginative poetic voices". These prophets began to reinterpret their history and provide a renewed hope for the future. All the images mentioned above (e.g., a child deliverer born from Eve, protection in the land of wandering, the defeat of beastly kingdoms and resulting exodus) became hooks on which the prophets began to hang new promises on.

Isaiah, in chapters 40-55, reflects on the deliverance from Babylonian exile. Because of Israel's sins they had been punished with exile (40.1, 2), but now God was going to make a "triumphal highway" for his glorious return (40.3-5) at which time he would lead them like a shepherd leads his flock through the desert (40. 9-11). In the wake of his return the idolatrous kingdoms of men (40.15-20), in this context Babylon, which seemed to have so much power, would be consumed like grass and would be considered "as less than nothing" (40.6-8, 17). The powerful nation of Babylon would be overcome by the everlasting Creator, God, who gives power to the weak and who causes the faint to raise up with "wings like eagles" (40.28-31). The language used by Isaiah in this chapter echoes the language of the exodus from Egypt. God would send shepherds, like Moses and Aaron to assist the people in their exodus from Babylon. In this chapter Isaiah has successfully reclaimed the stories of the nations past to give them hope and encouragement.

Isaiah 56-66 should be considered from a post-exilic context. The prophet was conjuring up "the days of old" when Moses and the elders of the people brought Israel, like shepherds leading a flock, up out of the sea (63.11, 12). Isaiah cried to God to look down, like a father on his children, and show compassion on them for their condition (63.15, 16). They had wandered and wanted to return to the land he had given them to possess (63.17). Unlike the triumph of God over the horses and chariots of Egypt (Ex. 15) the adversaries of the "holy people" had trampled them down (63.18). With engaged prophetic imagination Isaiah pictures God on Mt. Sinai looking down with concern on the affliction of his people (63.15, 64.1, cf. Ex.3.7). Isaiah cries out for God to break his long silence, rend the heavens and come deliver them (64.1, 12). All of these actions were predicated on the fact that he was their father (63.16, 64.8). Again it is easy to see by the explicit references to Moses and the parting of the waters and the implicit language of God as warrior (64.1; cf. Ex.15.1-18) and father (63.16; cf.Ex.4.22, 23) that Isaiah is building on the national memory of the exodus.

Isaiah was not alone in his use of the exodus to invoke memories in the minds of the people. Jeremiah, a prophet of the exile, was consumed by the domination of the Babylonian superpower. Like the voice of Isaiah 40.3, Jeremiah proclaims deliverance for the people of Israel and Judah (50.2-5). Like sheep gathered after being scattered God was going to gather his people together from Babylon, the beast that had "devoured" them (50.6-8). The nations of Assyria and Babylon had hunted for Israel like lions on the prowl for sheep, but God was about to act and restore Israel to his pasture and feed them like a shepherd feeds his flock (50.17-20). There was a call to come out of Babylon in order to escape her judgment; the sword of God was going to be against her. All her officials were to be killed, their horses and their chariots were to be destroyed, her treasures were to be plundered, and her waters were going to be dried up (50.35-38; 51.21, 36). Despite her wealth and power, displayed in the act of the nations drinking from her cup, she would suddenly fall (51.6-8). The hour of vindication would soon come and the warrior God was going to "dry up her sea" and execute vengeance (51.11, 36). He would remove from Babylon's mouth the thing he had swallowed (51.44). As in the passages reviewed in Isaiah the fiftieth and fifty-first chapters of Jeremiah are filled with the familiar theme of exodus with additional references to the powers that dominated and devoured them as monsters or powerful beasts (50.17, 51.34, 44).

From the beginning to the end the book; Jeremiah is concerned with exile (cf.1.3) and the impact it had on the relationship between God and Israel. Suddenly, with a flick of the pen, Jeremiah announces an end to exile – an exodus from Babylon. The relationship was now restored and "would never be forgotten" (50.5). From the time of Israel's release from Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E, through the post-exilic period, and until the first century C.E. the incompleteness of restoration was profoundly felt by Israel. As Brueggemann writes, "Homecoming [had] …never been fully accomplished, so that Judaism is marked perennially as a scattered, displaced community".

The ministry of Jesus Christ was bound up in his proclamation of the good news regarding the kingdom of God (Mk. 1.14, 15). The prophets had foretold that God would reveal himself as king and would fulfill his promises to Israel. In agreement with Brueggemann, Wright asserts that exile and restoration (exodus) represented the "central drama that Israel believed herself to be acting out" and that many in the days of Jesus, "if not most", believed the exile continued despite their geographic return. He identifies, in parables like the prodigal son, the theme of exile and restoration with the "exodus itself as the ultimate backdrop". Dunn contends that Wright is exaggerating the importance of return from exile as the "controlling story" or "grand narrative" of Jesus' ministry by providing several other motifs that play into his teaching. Dunn does concede, however, that Wrights' application of exile and restoration to the parable of the prodigal is "plausible" yet finds the theme inadequate to explain the second half of the parable. He believes the "central significance" of Jesus' message of the kingdom is found in his critical assessment of Israel's leaders and his "concern for the 'poor' and 'sinner'".

The good news proclaimed by Jesus was to the 'poor' and 'sinner', to those marginalized by the powerful, to those who were blind, to the captives looking for liberation, and to the oppressed who needed deliverance (Lk. 4.18, 19; cf. Isa. 61.1, 2). Is it too much, however, to say that these were the actions of Moses? Did not the exodus accomplish these things? Did the prophets not connect these actions to the exodus? A balanced view of Jesus' ministry is that he and the writers of the gospel considered him to be playing a role similar to Moses and that his message was an imaginative retelling of Israel's story of which exile and exodus are a significant part.

This inspired retelling of Israel's story and in particular her story of exodus can be seen in the gospel of Mark. Mark leads off his gospel by putting a composite quote from Isaiah and Malachi in the mouth of the baptizer John. The first part of the quote is taken from Malachi 3.1, which, in its original use by Malachi, was alluding to the first exodus when God sent his messenger (angel) before them (Ex 23.20). Isaiah 40.3, from which the second part of the quote is draw, is alluding broadly to the original exodus from Egypt. In the verses following this quote Mark applies them to John. He claims that the Baptist was preaching repentance and when those from Judea and Jerusalem confessed their sins against God he baptized them in water (1.4, 5). It was in this setting that Jesus was introduced.

The synoptic gospels all record Jesus' baptism using language that conjures up the exodus and provides theological context to the ministry of Jesus. Jesus came to be baptized of John claiming that it was a necessary act in order to fulfill all righteousness (Mt 3.13). It was a baptism of repentance which John did not think Jesus needed (Mt 3.11, 14). Wright, though not addressing this passage specifically, states that repentance was what Israel needed to do if her exile was to come to an end. Jesus was showing the nation of Israel what the first step was to be on the road out of exile. The scene of Jesus' baptism is filled with allusions and echoes from Israel's past.

Baptism (Mt 3.13-17; Mk1.9-11; Lk 3.21-22; Jn 1.29-34)

Old Testament Allusion

He came to the Jordan to repent and be baptized As soon as he came up out of the water: The heavens were torn (opened) the Spirit like a dove descended on him Voice spoke from the heavens and claimed him as his son in whom he was pleased He was led into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted 40 days

Israel came to the Red Sea the first stop on the road out of exile As soon as Israel passed through the sea: Isa 63.7-64:12 (cf. Ex.19-20) God as a divine warrior "rends the heavens", descends from his mountain and claims a people Gen 1.2 God's spirit hovered over the waters to facilitate first creation. He now hovered over his son the first of his new creation Ex 20.22 (cf. Ex 4.22; Hos.11.1) God's firstborn son, Israel, heard their father's voice from heaven Isa 40.3 (cf. Ex. 23.20; 33.14, 15) the presence of the LORD went with Israel into the wilderness 40 years

So, the details of Jesus' baptism account seem to resonate with Israel's memory of the exodus. When the readers of the gospels in the first century reflected on Jesus coming out of the water, having the Spirit descend on him, and then spending 40 days in the wilderness they were most certainly struck by the implications.

Without the promises of God to the first men (e.g. Adam, Abraham) there would be no expectation for anything more than wandering and exile. Yet their experiences, their failures and hopes, provide the backdrop for the exodus theme. Without it the exodus has no meaning. Like Handel's Coronation Anthem the music begins with a "long sustained crescendo that conveys an overwhelming sense of expectation and suspense" when suddenly the voices resolve the longing of the listener for resolution with the words, "Zadok the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet, anointed Solomon King. And all people rejoiced, and said: God save the King, long live the King, may the King live forever! Amen, Alleluia". Israel's expectations were also increased by the long sustained crescendo of their hope for deliverance when God tore open the heavens and spoke to them through his son. The exodus image and the creative reshaping of the story by the prophets created the right framework for God to speak to the world.

The story of deliverance is not over because we, at present, do not see everything subject to man as promised in the garden. We do, however, see Jesus and our hope in him causes us to anticipate final and complete emancipation. The church has picked up the story of Israel. She, through her history, has had to flee from the dragon and God has given to her "the two wings of a great eagle" for her to escape (Rev 12.13-13.1). In the end the people of God will be safely at home in his presence. There will be a garden city where God dwells and all the nations of the earth dwell there with him (Rev 21-22).

Theology-Missions and the Importance of Context

An article I wrote for an Applied Theology course:

Over the last twenty centuries the church of Jesus Christ has attempted to fulfill the great commission by spreading the gospel to and making disciples of all nations. It has met with varying degrees of success. With the recent and rapid acceptance of Christianity by the global south and east the church has been challenged with new theological questions; questions which confront the church to work with a more global, theologically open, and culturally sensitive missional approach. The pattern for missions can be found in the New Testament through the actions of Jesus and of the church which continued his work.

Jesus was not a door to door evangelist providing a thirty second sells pitch for the coming Kingdom of God. He was a man who gathered others around him in close, long term, friendships (e.g. Act 4.13). Jesus ate with his disciples and others with whom he was attempting to influence (Mt 26.20; Lk 5.29). Because of his intimate connection with people there were many who followed him (Mk 2.15). He lived with them so he could influence them. The relationships Jesus built between himself and his disciples were not simply master to student, but friend to friend (Jn 15.15). Jesus built relationships of trust and commitment with his disciples.

When Christ's work was completed he commissioned his followers to pursue his example (Jn 13.1-17; 17.18). The scope of his charge extended to all nations, but he didn't provide many specifics (Mt 28.19, 20; Act 1.8). When the opportunities presented themselves his disciples were faithful to follow Christ's pattern by building intimate, interpersonal relationships. On the day of Pentecost, for example, over three thousand were added to the church (Act 2.41). These new believers were immediately embraced and nurtured in the faith. They began to fellowship with each other by going from house to house and by praying and eating together (2.42). The disciples of Jesus who were scattered due to persecution only ministered initially to other Jews (Act 11.19). As long as Jewish Christians were ministering to other Jewish people; intimacy in relations, as exemplified by shared meals and living arrangements, did not present significant problems.

When men like Paul and Peter, however, began to have success with gentiles problems ensued. The new gentile converts did not share the same Jewish culture. The distinctive lifestyle of the gentile believers was offensive to Jewish Christians - theological questions immediately arose. Did the gentile Christians need to be circumcised? Did they have to abide by the Jewish dietary laws? The leaders of the church could have dismissed these questions and forced compliance based on their Jewish bias, but they understood, after some deliberation and strong debate, that if they would not seek for a compulsory, standardized expression of faith, the gospel would be more easily and rapidly expanded throughout every cultural group in every nation (Ott et al, 2006, 139). At the counsel in Jerusalem a short list of restrictions, primarily dealing with idolatry, were given to the gentiles, which were to help promote fellowship between them and the Jewish Christians (Act 15.19, 20).

So, the early church leaders were able to see that in order to gain a close relationship with the gentile people they had to determine what was essential. They recognized that propagating their Jewish culture would not bring about the success they were looking for from the gentile mission field. The Jewish synagogue was a sufficient proof that a dispersed Jewish population, promoting its Jewish laws, was not widely accepted by the nations by which they were surrounded, although they were an influence and became the springboard for much of the early Christian missionary efforts. The churches great success among the diverse people groups would come from missionaries who made themselves all things to all men (1 Cor 9.19-23), by removing all unnecessary barriers to the propagation of the gospel. The church of Jesus Christ today should set out to make other disciples by relating to the unsaved in all the ways which they can lawfully relate - ways patterned after the methods of Christ and the early church. Ways which do not compromise the pattern of life exemplified by Christ, but also dignify and preserve the people and their cultural identities. When Paul wrote that the old social and racial distinctions between Jews and Greeks were no longer significant he was not saying that they did not continue. Jews and Greeks continued to be whom and what they were, but as part of the new creation their distinctions were not to be advanced as essential (1 Cor 12.13; Gal 3.28; Col 3.11). The culture of Christ was significant and it was to challenge and obliterate the sinful aspects of all cultures it encountered while it allowed for the retention of the morally neutral aspects of each.

For the church today to be what God has called it and Christ has commissioned it to be; it must engage all peoples everywhere with a theology which is more concerned with putting people into Christ rather than conforming them to a particular church, denomination, or culture. Like the counsel in Jerusalem; the present day church should allow cultural diversity within the confines of the character and laws of Christ (1Cor 9.21). Many in the west have failed to evangelize in this way, choosing rather to promote a monolithic faith which is imposed on all believers everywhere. There is certainly a risk to orthodoxy when Christians around the globe are allowed to contextualize theology - the risk is real. History reveals that when the early church became successful and more accepted it fell into syncretism. The risk, however, is not greater than the reward and hegemony comes with its own set of problems. The global church needs to trust that the Spirit of Truth will correct any extreme challenges to orthodox teaching and that, through free expression of the Spirit, lives will be changed and the Kingdom of God will expand. Missionaries need to be humble enough to listen to perspectives that may challenge many of their preconceived, culturally shaped, theological understandings. By so doing the church globally will be strengthened.

By allowing the church to contextualize its theology a dynamic and rewarding interchange of ideas between the global church and its local manifestations will be realized. The local church is more successful because it is contextually relevant. The global church is built up through the insights it gains from a fresh reading of the scriptures which was mandated due to the challenges brought on by the activities of the local church. This theological give-and-take allows Christians to engage more effectively with the local culture while sharing their experiences with other Christians in other contexts (Ott et al, 2006, 174). The writer of Hebrews seems to indicate that God had provided for diversity in the delivery of his message. He writes, "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets" (Heb 1.1). The words polumerōs and polutropōs in this verse can be understood as referring to the different manners in which something may be done. We cannot override the particularities of a local culture with those of another culture. Strong claims that the Jerusalem counsel did not "seek an abstract, monolithic theological statement [but rather] while maintaining the specific and necessary truth of salvation by faith, they permitted freedom in nonoffensive practices" (Ott et al, 2006, 139). They thereby freed the gospel to expand into every cultural group. Many evangelicals, however, have not allowed for this kind of flexibility and have insisted on a universal, one-size-fits-all gospel.
As mentioned above there is a rich interplay between the local and global church when the local church is allowed to theologize within its context. New cultures provide new perspectives, new perspectives generate new questions, and new questions require a new, fresh reading of the scriptures. This free-flow of ideas and perspectives will lead to a healthier, more open, others-focused church. It will prevent the self-centered, myopic, culture-sanctifying tendencies the church has fallen prey to throughout its history. If the church will maintain a first century model for missions and evangelism it will be infused with new life; life that stems from being more effective at 'making disciples'.

The risk of a contextualized theology is that it can be applied uncritically, and worse, with an unspiritual mind. It can lead to a condition where the "gospel becomes whatever people believe it to be" (Ott et al, 2006, 293). The theological critique and counsel from the body of Christ must be allowed to help give balance to the activities of the local church (Ott et al, 2006, 248). But ultimately the Spirit of God working in the lives of women and men in a local church will be the primary defense against heresy and will produce a community where the prevailing life of faith is manifest (Zuck, 1994, 328).

Jesus claimed that what the disciples would lack because of his departure would be made up by the coming of the Comforter; also called the Spirit of Truth (Jn 14.16, 15.26, 16.7). The Comforter or Counselor that Christ would send in his absence would 'convict the world of sin' (Jn 16.8) and guide the church 'into all truth' (16.13). Do the leaders of the church today trust that the Spirit of God will convict and teach the church? Do they believe that God knows how to build his Kingdom? There will continue to be schisms between North and South, Anglican and Episcopalian, Fundamentalist and Liberal (Jenkins, 2006, 191). If the church, however, will trust the Spirit and humbly listen to each other with an open heart and mind the differences will be minimized and the common goal of seeing the nations blessed by the gospel will be realized. If Paul were alive today he would call for the church to be 'unified in the Spirit.until we all reach unity in the faith' (Eph 4.3, 13).