The Spiritual Value of Mortgage Banking

houseIn some churches, guys are often fed the lie that unless they’re a pastor, or doing some ‘secular’ work that can be quickly linked to some moral or spiritual value, it’s 2nd-class work. Or if you’re in a church where the whole ‘man of adventure’ thing is being pushed, unless you’re out chopping down wood, or fighting some battle, it’s ‘just a job’ that you have to suck it up and work it for a paycheck. Mike Erre addresses this myth in his book Why Guys Need God: The Spiritual Side of Money, Sex, and Relationships, by talking about his buddy who’s an average, un-sexy job in the mortgage industry:

How should my friend see his job? As simply a means of paying the bills? Or as something much more?

The first thing we might say to this friend is that he must see his job within the big, epic, story we talked about…[creation, fall, redemption]. It is part of being human and being a man. And he must find a way to name the animals in his current occupation in order for him to see its place within the larger story. This is absolutely critical if he is to discover God’s purposes for him in his job. How does he do this?

We might begin by saying that human beings need shelter. That is not optional. Owning a house, then, is a good thing. Helping people to live in a way that brings comfort and security is an important thing. Not only that, but because of the legal and financial gymnastics involved in buying a home, my friend is offering a valuable service to his clients by guiding them through the bewildering maze of numbers, points, and payments.

This man also does his work with honesty and integrity. He genuinely seems to put his clients first and tries to bring Jesus glory by speaking kindly and considerately to all around him. He truly does his work “as unto the Lord.” Is this not worship? Is this any less spiritual than pastoral work or missionary work? Of course not. Many have come to faith because of this man’s life and work. He demonstrates what Jesus is like through his kindness and honesty. And he is generous with his money. He works to remedy injustice around him, and he supports several ministries as well as his local church. (pg. 68)

This is an ordinary man following God’s call. Through the way he carries out his daily work as a mortgage broker he is living as an Image-bearer and a disciple of Jesus, on mission in the world.

Honestly, whatever you’re doing (excluding the obviously immoral), you can do as part of your call as an Image-bearer and a disciple of Jesus. Do not be fooled into thinking that the only ‘spiritual’ things you do are those that happen in the local body. I love the local body, and I think people need to serve in it, but don’t for a minute think that the other 40-50 hours a week you spend at your job isn’t also an opportunity to love your neighbor and glorify God in what you do.

Soli Deo Gloria

Living the Epic Drama in Short Stories (CaPC)

munroAlice Munro won a Nobel Prize in Literature this week. Aside from being the first Canadian, and thirteenth woman to do so, this is significant because she won it, not for a novel, but for being a “master of the contemporary short story.” That’s pretty cool.

When asked why she writes short stories instead of novels, Munro told The Atlantic:

So why do I like to write short stories? Well, I certainly didn’t intend to. I was going to write a novel. And still! I still come up with ideas for novels. And I even start novels. But something happens to them. They break up. I look at what I really want to do with the material, and it never turns out to be a novel. But when I was younger, it was simply a matter of expediency. I had small children, I didn’t have any help. Some of this was before the days of automatic washing machines, if you can actually believe it. There was no way I could get that kind of time. I couldn’t look ahead and say, this is going to take me a year, because I thought every moment something might happen that would take all time away from me. So I wrote in bits and pieces with a limited time expectation. Perhaps I got used to thinking of my material in terms of things that worked that way. And then when I got a little more time, I started writing these odder stories, which branch out a lot. But I still didn’t write a novel, in spite of good intentions.

Munro, basically: “I had novel ideas and I’d start them, but…yeah, life, so short stories.”

You can go read my reflections on what that means for our short stories over at Christ and Pop Culture.

Thistles and Thorns in Ministry (Leadership Journal)

thorns

Thistles and thorns—that’s what the earth gives up to Adam this side of Eden. Adam’s work is no longer a pure good undertaken in delighted obedience to his Creator, but a toilsome chore. The sweat of his brow mingles with the dirt as he engages in the mighty contest, hand to the plow, wrestling life from sandy soil. Life after the Fall is hard and nothing comes easy. Reflecting on life under the sun, without the hope of redemption, Qohelet’s question in Ecclesiastes rings true today, “Who can make straight what he has made crooked?”

Basically, if you’re breathing, you’re frustrated.

Thorny questions

For some reason, I forget this when it comes to my ministry.

Groggy with exhaustion and the mildest tinge of depression, I roll out of bed after a night of ministry with my students. I wander over to the coffee machine for the fix that will get me through my devotions. After a passage from John and a little commentary by Calvin, I stumble into my prayers. I thank God for the good things he’s given me; my adoption, my wife, and my call to ministry. Still, eventually the questions come:

God, what am I doing wrong? What needs to change? Why is it so hard? Where are the people? I did the thing the guy in the book said. I did the stuff the guy on the blog said. Why are the ones I have not growing up? I thought you wanted this to work?

You can go read the rest my reflections over at Leadership Journal.

John’s the Odd Kid in the Corner

kid in the cornerThe Gospels are each unique. That’s one of the big takeaways I had from seminary. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all had one goal: tell the gospel of Jesus. That said, they went about that goal in different ways, working with overlapping material, as well as different material, with editorial work that reflects their different audiences and short-term purposes (which scholar debate about endlessly so I won’t even try to wade into that right now.)

All that said, John’s bit more unique. The other three are typically known as the synoptic Gospels because they all share a ton of material, and seem to follow a similar timeline with expanded sections here and there. John kinda does his own thing. He’s got these long expanded meditations, speeches, and limited action. He’s like the odd kid in the corner staring at bark, wondering what it’s made of, when the other three are out on basketball court running about.

Calvin tries to capture this difference in his opening to the commentary on John:

Yet there is also this difference between them, that the other three are more copious in their narrative of the life and death of Christ, but John dwells more largely on the doctrine by which the office of Christ, together with the power of his death and resurrection, is unfolded. They do not, indeed, omit to mention that Christ came to bring salvation to the world, to atone for the sins of the world by the sacrifice of his death, and, in short, to perform every thing that was required from the Mediator, (as John also devotes a portion of his work to historical details;) but the doctrine, which points out to us the power and benefit of the coming of Christ, is far more clearly exhibited by him than by the rest. And as all of them had the same object in view, to point out Christ, the three former exhibit his body, if we may be permitted to use the expression, but John exhibits his soul. On this account, I am accustomed to say that this Gospel is a key to open the door for understanding the rest; for whoever shall understand the power of Christ, as it is here strikingly portrayed, will afterwards read with advantage what the others relate about the Redeemer who was manifested.

–Commentary on John, Preface

While recent literary theory and technique have shown the way that the other Gospel-writers were still doing some deep, meditative theology in their Gospels, there’s something special about dwelling at length on John’s account. As Calvin hints, staring deep into the eyes of Jesus in John, helps you understand his acts and words in the other Gospels.

In other words, spend some time with the odd kid in the corner. Just like in real life, this can pay off.

Soli Deo Gloria

There are so many awesome resources on John, but here are two I’ve found beneficial:
John for Everyone Part 1 Part 2 by N.T. Wright – While he’s got some quirky takes here and there, Wright does a beautiful job grounding John’s unique Gospel in 1st Century history, unlike some others, and keeps it quite readable.
The Gospel According to John by D.A. Carson – Scholarly enough, but very pastoral, Carson’s commentary is also well-rooted in history. Great for preaching and paper-writing.

On Making Key Distinctions in Polemics (Or, Richard Dawkins Isn’t the Only Atheist Out There)

Why? Because Tigers, that's why. Also, no good images for 'polemics.'

Why? Because Tigers, that’s why. Also, no good images for ‘polemics.’

I’ve written about intellectual honesty in polemics before over at Mere Orthodoxy where I argued that as Christians we ought to be principled in our engagement with positions with which we disagree:

We should strive to deal honorably, speak honestly, and actively avoid unfair caricatures and cheap shots in our polemical engagements. Whenever arguing against a position we ought to represent our interlocutors accurately, fairly, and charitably. In other words, don’t purposely take the dumbest interpretation of any statement they make and argue against that. That’s just dishonest.

Later, in a post on the issue of self-criticism within the Reformed tradition, I noted the sad fact that sometimes you will find pastors and theologians who actually fit the caricatures that are often criticized. When that happens, the distorted, unfaithful, sub-biblical versions of doctrines and teachings need to be corrected directly and forthrightly:

For instance, not every Calvinistic or Reformed pastor reads Kevin Vanhoozer, or preaches like Tim Keller, or articulates doctrine with the care and sensitivity of a Michael Horton. My own experience of the Reformed world has taken place in the context of a gently conservative Presbyterian church with caring, faithful, and sensitive pastors, but much as I hate to admit it, the reality is that some Reformed bodies are real-life, walking caricatures of the tradition I hold dear. Just as Wesleyan or Baptistic theologies can go off the rails in serious ways, so can churches and theologies with putatively Reformed roots. When that is the only expression of Reformed faith someone encounters, distaste for the whole stream is quite understandable. Sometimes the caricatures have human faces.

That said, I wanted to briefly return to the issue of polemics and caricatures formalize a couple of suggestions on how to criticize in a careful, intellectually-honest fashion. In essences, it’s a matter of establishing what you’re trying to do:

Inherently Bad Doctrines – There will be those instances when you undertake the task of criticizing a doctrine which you find inherently bad and utterly irredeemable in all its forms. In that case, your job is not to simply find the easiest, dumbest version of the doctrine to criticize, but the best, most nuanced, and persuasive version that doctrine that you can. When I read Thomas Weinandy’s defense of impassibility in Does God Suffer? I was impressed by his early chapter laying out the arguments against impassibility. By the end of it, I was wondering how he was going to dig himself out because he’d presented the case of his opponents better than most of them had (he did, though.) In the same way, strive to present the arguments of your opponents in terms they would be prepared to recognize and own, before you proceed to criticize it.

Distorted Versions – In the second case, there will be times when you’re not attempting to take down a doctrine wholesale, but particular versions, possibly popular and prevalent understandings, that you find inadequate. In those cases, as I noted above, add some caveats such as “in some versions”, “in this rendering”, “in it’s popular form”, “while not all proponents would frame it this way”, and then criticize away. If I launch off on “pacifists” in general, or “dispensationalists”, or “atheists”, (not that these are at all in the same category) when in fact it is only some, or the worst forms, that are guilty of whatever mistake I’m talking about, I’ve been deeply uncharitable towards those who are not. In other words, Richard Dawkins is not the only atheist out there. While it’s fine and important to criticize him, especially given the weight so many pop atheist fanboys give him, it’s unfair to all the very thoughtful, intellectually serious ones out there. 

This may all seem a bit nit-picky, but honesty and charity in our criticisms is a practical way we can work towards unity in the body, as well as put into practice Jesus’ commands to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Soli Deo Gloria

Why You Can’t Pit Jesus Against His Bible (@TGC)

Every so often, the champions and foes of “Red Letter” Christianity break out their arguments, sharpen them up, and take to the internet. Champions say we’ve ignored the words of Jesus—highlighted in some modern Bibles with red lettering—for far too long. They want us to take up the radical call to discipleship Jesus issued in the Sermon on the Mount. The foes say that even printing these words in red creates a false, canon-within-a-canon that distorts the Scriptures.

it_is_finishedOf course, there is a good sense in which we ought to give heightened priority to the words and deeds of Jesus. Unfortunately, some other self-described, “Red Letter” Christians do more than them priority. Instead, they contrast and even set in opposition the words of Jesus from the writings of Paul, or some other similarly ill-tempered and unprogressive disciple. While problematic, that approach is even less concerning than the tendency to pit Jesus against the Bible he grew up with: the Old Testament. Jesus’ words and character are contrasted with the Old Testament law, or the various commands of God scattered throughout the narrative sections of the Torah. So where Jesus and the Old Testament seem to conflict on violence, neighbor-love, sexuality, or some other hot topic, go with Jesus, they say. If you have to pick between red or black letters, go with red.

At the risk of kicking off another round of ‘robust dialogue’, here are three reasons why that approach doesn’t really work.

You can read the reasons over at The Gospel Coalition.

Three Themes to Watch For in Legend of Korra (CaPC)

the-legend-of-korra

You probably know by now that The Legend of Korra has returned for a second season on Nickelodeon. Originally planned as a single 12-episode follow-up to the award-winning Avatar: The Last AirbenderThe Legend of Korra been expanded to four seasons, much to the delight of its loyal fans.

Without getting too bogged down, the Avatar series occurs in an Asian-influenced world containing four nations associated with the classical elements (air, water, fire, earth). Some within each nation are able to manipulate their nation’s respective element through a form of “psychokinetic” martial arts called ”bending.” The Avatar is the only one who can master all four elements and is charged with maintaining balance and peace. The Legend of Korra follows the new avatar, Korra, an impulsive yet courageous young woman from the Southern Water Tribe who is tasked with becoming the guardian and enforcer of balance within the world.

We’re several episodes into the second season, and it’s off to a brilliant start. Artistically, it’s clearly on par with previous seasons. Character and plot developments are developing quickly, and the dialogue is as rich and humorous as ever. Since I hate it when people blow shows for me, I won’t really talk too much about the plot so far. (Also, that’d be really silly to do after only a handful of episodes.) However, I do want to note three themes that I’ll be keeping an eye on, and raise a few corresponding questions.

You can read my analysis and questions over at Christ and Pop Culture.

Modern/Postmodern Ideological Moralism

protest“My life has meaning because of the Cause. You oppose the Cause. You must submit or be destroyed. –modern/postmodern ideological moralism”

I posted that status after reading a little section towards the end of Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self (yes, after two months I finally finished it) on Nietzsche’s analysis about the modern demand of benevolence. Nietzsche has one of the most insightful examinations of the way that the modern idea that humanity must maintain a goodwill towards all, (“a secularized agape“) especially apart from the context of grace, can provoke feelings either of unworthiness or self-satisfaction in the human soul. Basically, the options are despair, or smug self-satisfaction depending on how well you think you measure up to the standard.

Taylor goes on to analyze one further implication that Nietzsche left unexplored:

The threatened sense of unworthiness can also lead to the projection of evil outward; the bad, the failure is now identified with other people or group. My conscience is clear because I oppose them, but what can I do? They stand in the way of universal beneficence; they must be liquidated. This becomes particularly virulent on the extremes of the political spectrum, in a way which Dostoevsky explored to unparalleled depths.

In our day as in his, many young people are driven to political extremism, sometimes by truly terrible conditions, but also by a need to give meaning to their lives. And since meaninglessness is frequently accompanied by a sense of guilt, they sometimes respond to a strong ideology of polarization, in which one recovers a sense of direction as well as a sense of purity by lining up in implacable opposition to the forces of darkness. The more implacable, even violent the opposition, the more the polarity is represented as absolute, and the greater the sense of separation from evil and hence purity. Dostoevsky’s Devils is one of the great documents of modern times, because it lays bear the way in which an ideology of universal love and freedom can mask a burning hatred, directed outward onto an unregenerate world and generating destruction and despotism.

Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, pp. 516-517

Taylor penned these words, maybe twenty, twenty-five years ago, but as I read this I couldn’t help but think of my own generation and the one coming up right behind us. It’s pretty common to either demonize or idolize our moral sense; we’re either relativists, or morally superior activists depending on who’s telling the story. I’d say there’s quite a bit of both.  One ‘ist’ I’d definitely add to the list is ‘moralists.’

Pick a hot subject (gay marriage, the environment, misogyny, healthcare, etc.) and I’ll scroll through my facebook feed to find someone updating vociferously on the subject, trumpeting their position and damning the opposition in bold, apocalyptic terms. It’s not just that people are wrong, confused, and possibly in need of correction, they’re downright wicked. Of course, this phenomena spans generations, but as younger generations increasingly identify as ‘nones’ (no religious affiliation), it’s not that they have no moral or spiritual bearings, but that they find them elsewhere.

Taking that sense from the reigning Causes linked to the demands of benevolence (“love”, “justice”, “equality”) of the day, is the increasingly popular option, more  than any explicit religious system. This is why our political arguments aren’t just about the issues, they’re about a much-deeper justification of the Self. If I am defined by my position on health-care and corresponding self-image as a moral, caring (or pragmatic and free) person, then when I argue with you about it, I’m defending my raison-d’etre. You don’t simply have a different opinion on a subject, you threaten my very being.

What’s more, if supporting this Cause is what makes me righteous and pure, your opposition demonstrates your impurity and wickedness, possibly even your inhumanity. You must be opposed, hopefully only through argument, but if you persist in your perversity, other, stronger means of enforcement may need to be used. This is modern/postmodern ideological moralism.

None of this is new, of course. Postmodern thinkers have been describing the way we construct oppositional identities like this for years, but what’s been interesting to see is this sort of logic at work in the lives of my peers and contemporaries in today’s debates. Of course, posting aggressive memes on Facebook isn’t exactly coercion, or fanatic violence yet, but the language used, and, at times, the political measures advocated by partisans verges on it.

Christians reading this might be tempted to take this as a simple condemnation of secularists, saying, “See, look what happens when you don’t have God.” I mean, in a sense, that’s what’s going on. But that doesn’t let religious believers off the hook too quickly. As a friend of mine pointed it, this simply the logic of Holy War, sublimated and secularized. All it does is point out one more way that the whole dichotomy of ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ breaks down at the functional level. Get rid of God, and something else fills in the existential vacuum. In other words, at this point, they’re only doing what religious people have done with their gods for years, including Christians.

Actually, this ought to put believers, especially Christians, on notice to examine where we’re getting our sense of self, our purity, our wholeness. Is it from the righteousness of our own moral positions, or from the righteousness we have in Christ by grace, apart from our own moral achievements? If the former, we’re in the same boat. If the latter, that sets us in a position to be able to disagree, even forcefully with others, without feeling our entire sense of self threatened. Even if others oppose us, not only on moral issues, but set themselves in vocal opposition to Christianity itself, how can we look on them as totally other than ourselves? For is this not what we ourselves were apart from God’s condescending grace? Enemies of God in need of redemption (Rom. 5:6-11)? And are we not secure, no matter what accusation or charge brought against us (Rom. 8:30-39)?

In other words, there’s a visible, practical difference we observe in the lives of those who trust in the Christian Gospel as opposed to merely subscribing to its morals. In fact, unless you believe the former, you won’t be able to practice the core of the latter, at the center of which stands the command to love our enemies the Christ has loved us. Moralism, secular or ‘religious’ can only inspire demonization of the enemy. Only the Gospel of grace can lead us to true goodwill towards all.

Soli Deo Gloria

Joseph, Crappy Jobs, and Working for the Glory of God (The Story Notes #4)

josephMy church is, across all departments, going through The Story, a chronological, abridged edition of the Bible that takes you through the story of Scripture from Genesis to the end of Acts in 31, novel-like chapters. It’s a fun project that’s challenging me to deal with narrative sections, teach large chunks at a clip, and point my kids to Christ throughout the whole redemptive-historical story-line of the text.

That said, it seemed worth it to start posting my notes for these talks on a regular basis. It might happen every week, or not, depending on how helpful I think it is, or time constraints. My one request is that you remember these are pretty rough notes and I’m teaching my students, not a broader audience.

Text – Genesis 39-

One of the big questions that a lot of us start asking in college, or should, is “How do we work in the secular world, maybe in difficult situations?” Right? A lot of us are getting our first jobs, or we’re thinking about what to study, and what career to go into. We’re starting to realize that if you don’t know how to live out your faith at work, then there’s about 40 or 50 hours of your week where you’re just saying, “Well God, I’ll check back in with you when I’m off the clock.” For followers of Jesus, that just won’t work. Jesus claims all of our lives, including our work lives. So how do you work as a Christian?

What’s more, how do we do it when it’s difficult? When your boss is a tool? When you’re at a job you hate? When your co-workers don’t love Jesus? When you’re kind of wondering why you’re even there?

 Well, while there’s a lot to say, tonight we’re going to talk about the story of Joseph and see the way trusting in God’s purposes allows us to engage the world at work for his glory.

To see this, let’s set up the story.

The Story – Here’s the set-up. so, last week we talked about Abraham. Abraham had Isaac who then had a son named Jacob. Jacob was a busy man who ended up with twelve sons. Joseph is one of Jacob’s sons. In fact, he was his favorite son and he made it very clear (special coat, privileges, etc), so much that his brothers became jealous of him. Now, Joseph was kind of an arrogant young idiot and even told them he had vision where he’d basically be ruling over them.

Well, later on they had a chance to get rid of them and so when they were far away from the house, and Joseph was coming to check up on them, they jumped him. Initially they were going to kill him, but instead, they ended up selling him into slavery. They took some of his clothes, tore ‘em up and bloodied them to make it look like a wild animal had eaten them.

Some time after that, he’s sold into the house of a very wealthy official in Pharaoh’s household named Potiphar, which is where we picked up the story in chapter 39 and we start to learn some things.

The Options — See, at this point, He was living in a new land, pagan, with a slave-owner boss who worshipped other gods. What we see is that Joseph avoided two basic options that we’re tempted to fall into, but opted for a third that comes from trusting in God. So what are these options?

Christians Don’t Slack — The first option would be to kind of slack off and shut-down. When you find yourself in a difficult situation, or interacting with non-Christians, you kind of do what you have to to get by, not more, not less, but just kind of half-it. A lot of Christians think that work in secular environments is just something you have to put up with. They refuse to participate, or accept positions of power because they think that working with non-Christians, or doing good at something other than churchy things is inherently sinful or inferior. Or maybe the situation is just so frustrating they get better and don’t work for that reason.

This is not what we see Joseph do. Joseph didn’t sit there getting bitter, cursing God for the situation and then just waiting it out.  See, it says that he worked and the Lord prospered his hand in all that he did. Now, if the Lord was prospering his hand, this doesn’t mean that he just kind of sat there and God worked it out. Clearly, Joseph applied himself to the best of his abilities and talents on behalf of his master. Despite being a pagan and his owner, Joseph worked to serve him and do the best job he could.

Christians are to work hard and do well in their jobs. We shouldn’t just punch our cards, and wait until the hours are done. Paul tells servants in Colossians that they should do their work as if they were working for Jesus himself. WE are to put our best foot forward, to try, to strive, to do a good job.

Christian Don’t Compromise – On the flipside, Joseph also avoids the other option: selling out. There are going to be times at work where it’s tempting to compromise. You may want to start giving in to the culture. It may be shady business deals. Or maybe its cheating your boss. Or maybe it’s just the general atmosphere of immorality. Whatever it is, the temptation is to just fit in and get cozy at the cost of your reputation and your relationship with God. Maybe you just figured all you can do is make the best of it because God has let you down, to you settle into the atmosphere of sin.

This is not what you see Joseph do either. Look at the situation with Potiphar’s wife. She’s coming on to him. She sees he’s young an attractive and she’s kind of a cougar, so she wants him. And, really, how easy would it have been for Joseph to give in? It probably would have been fun. What’s more, it might have benefited him short-term with his position. She might have put in a good word with her husband to set him free or give him more privileges, etc.

But he refuses to compromise and runs out the door on that. He says here quite clearly that he would not dishonor God or betray his master’s trust that way. He clings to his integrity and strives to honor God in what he’s doing. This is our call as Christians. We are to stand firm, not give in to the culture or sell out our integrity.

Being honest won’t always work out immediately either as you can see. She lies about him and gets him thrown in prison. You’re going to have these moments where being honest might not be the ‘smart’ thing to do, and yet the call is to stay firm and not compromise in our jobs.

Christians Glorify God by Bless Others – So what is driving Joseph? What is this third way? If it’s not shutting down, or selling out? What is his goal? What is his call? It is glorify God in his work. That’s what we see here, over and over again, as well as what we see in the rest of the story.

Summarizing some of the story ahead, you’ll see that once he’s in prison, he’s actually placed in a position of authority again. The jailer actually ends up trusting him so much he’s put in charge of the prisoners. While in there, he meets two of Pharaoh’s servants: the baker and the cupbearer. Both of them have dreams and he ends up interpreting the dreams for them: the baker would die and the cupbearer would return to his position. And that’s what happened. The cupbearer ends up getting out of prison and returning to his station right next to the Pharaoh.

Years later, the Pharaoh has a freaky weird dream about some skinny cows eating fat cows and it’s all very bizarre. None of Pharaoh’s wise men are able to decipher it and it’s at that point that the cupbearer remembers Joseph and his ability to interpret dreams. He brings him out of prison, where he is able to decipher the meaning of the dreams. They foretold seven years of crop abundance followed by seven years of famine. He then advised that the Pharaoh prepare by saving up during the fat years for the lean years.

And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” (Gen. 41:38-40)

Pharoah trusted in Joseph and because of his wisdom he took him and put him in charge of his empire. He was second only to Pharaoh. In other words, he went from the pit to the palace and from there, he administered Pharaoh’s kingdom wisely. And there he worked hard, and didn’t compromise either. But this shows us something else.

See, not only was he a hard worker and didn’t compromise, the wisdom of God helped him do things the people around him could not. See, this pointed ahead to what Israel was supposed to do in the world. God’s people have always been called to show the world what God is like through the wisdom he gives us. So, there might be times where the lessons of grace will give you extra peace, or graces, or care with a co-worker, or something like that which will give you an opportunity to be a light in the darkness for the name of Jesus.

And that  should be our goal: to glorify Jesus in the way we do our job with the wisdom of the Gospel

Christians Trust in God’s Sovereignty How do we do this in difficult situations, though? How do we have the perspective we need to be faithful in trials, to work hard, to not compromise and not give up hope? To testify to God’s wisdom for the world? By trusting you are where you are by God’s wisdom. This is what we see this later in Joseph’s story.

See, Joseph was raised to the palace, meanwhile when the famine hit, his own family was still back in Canaan, where the famine had no relief. So the brothers came down to Egypt to buy food and after an interesting chain of events, they were all reunited, and Jacob and his family were moved down to Egypt under the protection of Joseph where they grew and were prosperous.

In two speeches, Joseph testifies in his belief that God was in control the whole time. In chapter 45:5-7, he’s telling his brothers about what has happened and that they should not be afraid of him because he wasn’t angry anymore. He says to them,

““I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt!  And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

Later, after Jacob dies, they are again afraid that Joseph will take his revenge and so he has to reassure them and he says to them in 50:19-20:

But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

See, Joseph knew that God was in control and that he was working things out according to his plans. God was using the evil of his brothers and Joseph’s years to prepare  a way to save a great many lives, not only of Joseph and his brothers, but of many of the nations around him.  And, and, in the future, the bloodline Joseph preserved through his brothers, was that of the Messiah, the savior of the World.

Of course, Joseph had no idea at the time what redemptive purpose God had for him at the time. He only knew that God did have them, which is why he was able to serve without despair, or bitterness, and yet still work to glorify God. Only if you believe that God is at work in your work, that he has a plan for you can you follow after him.

Christians Look at Jesus– Of course, once again, we’re in a much better position to trust in God’s purposes for us at work because we’ve seen, not only Joseph, but the greater Joseph–Jesus Christ. Jesus was the perfect brother who went to work in a foreign land, not because he was forced to, but willingly. He was not made, but made himself a slave for his brothers. He worked in far worse conditions, amongst a people who rejected him, told lies about him, and threw him, not only into a pit, but the pit of hell itself on the Cross. But from there, that greater depth, he rose to a greater height, in the resurrection and ascension, he rose to heaven itself so that he might pass on riches, life, and health of salvation to those of us starving in sin.

This is what we see in the Gospel, and so even more than Joseph, we are able to trust in God’s purposes for our lives, even at work. As always, there are a number of take-aways to think about tonight:

Maybe God’s call is to quit slacking at work. Or, stop our compromise morally and spiritually. Or, it is to pick our head up and look for opportunities to bless those around us for the Glory of God. Whatever it is, know you’ve been called for God’s purpose wherever you are, serve as to the Lord, trust in God’s plans despite our lack of sight, and marvel at God’s ability to work that all out.

Soli Deo Gloria

A Few Looks At Crouch’s “Playing God”

playing godAndy Crouch, executive editor at Christianity Today and author of Culture Making, just released his new book on power called Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power. I haven’t read it yet, but apparently his thesis is that we’ve been given some shallow thinking on the topic lately, so Crouch wants us to re-examine our views of God’s gift of power in light of our creation in the Image of God and the redemption of that Image in Christ. Personally, I coudn’t agree more. Ever since reading James Davison Hunter’s critique of the Religious Right, Left, and Neo-Anabaptist rhetoric of power in To Change the World, I find myself constantly chafing at the inadequate ways we’ve been trained to conceive and exercise it as Christians.

While I haven’t read Crouch’s book yet, I have found some stimulating reviews floating around the web worth checking out.

First, Justin Taylor interviews Crouch over at the Between Two Worlds blog:

Taylor: The concept of flourishing is crucial for your book. What does it mean to flourish, and why is power such a key means and threat for the promotion of human flourishing?

Crouch: I think of flourishing as fullness of being—the “life, and that abundantly” that Jesus spoke of. Flourishing refers to what you find when all the latent potential and possibility within any created thing or person are fully expressed. In both Culture Making and Playing God I talk about the transition from nature to culture as a move from “good” to “very good.” Eggs are good, but omelets are very good. Wheat is good, but bread is very good. Grapes are good, but wine is very good. Et cetera. And the Bible has a third category, which is glory, which I would define as the magnificence of true being, a kind of ultimate flourishing. It is significant that the New Jerusalem will be full both of the glory of God—the magnificence of God’s true being fully known, experienced, and worshipped—and “the glory and honor of the nations”—which I take to mean the fruits of human culture brought to their deepest and fullest expression.

The interesting thing is that flourishing never happens by accident. Intentionality is always involved. And for most parts of creation, intelligent, attentive cultivation is required for things to flourish. If wine is one “very good,” flourishing expression of the grape, well, you don’t get wine if you just let it ferment on its own—you get vinegar, or worse. Wine only comes with tremendous skill, patience, and indeed creativity.

And this is why power is so intimately connected to flourishing—flourishing requires the exercise of true power, power that is bent on creating the best environment for someone or something to thrive. And while human flourishing is of paramount importance, the witness of Scripture seems to be that we human beings are here not just for our own flourishing, but for the flourishing of the whole created order. I think this is why Paul says the creation is “groaning for the revealing of the sons of God”—that phrase “sons of God” (which of course includes redeemed image bearers both male and female) is meant to signal true authority and dominion. If the true “sons of God” were to be revealed, the creation would flourish in ways we only dimly glimpse now.

James K.A. Smith forwards the discussion in his review over at Comment, especially when he  notes the ‘different story’ Crouch is telling about power:

Crouch reads cultural phenomena in order to discern the spirit that animates them, the worldview that undergirds them. “The premise of the Western,” for example, “as with the Nietzschean strain in literature from Lord of the Flies to The Hunger Games, is that when you strip away the trappings of civilization, you will find raw, primal conflict, bodies in competition to occupy all space.” In the face of this, Crouch asks the most fundamental question: “What is the deepest truth about the world? Is the deepest truth a struggle for mastery and domination? Or is the deepest truth collaboration, cooperation, and ultimately love?”  His reply is no less foundational: “I want to argue,” he emphasizes, “that Nietzsche’s ‘idea’ can be countered, point by point, with a very different vision of ultimate reality.”

This tack is just right: it goes to the root to recognize that how we conceive power comes down to fundamentally different mythologies, different faith-stances. What you think about power is always and ultimately rooted in some confession. In this sense, Crouch’s critique and counter-narration unwittingly replays—in much more accessible prose—precisely John Milbank’s critique of Nietzsche in his landmark book, Theology and Social Theory (especially chapter 10). A Christian understanding of power begins from a fundamentally different confessional standpoint. We refuse the myth that collapses power into violence and domination. We affirm a fundamentally different story in which power is a creative gift, and when we exercise that power rightly, we image God and love our neighbour.

Finally, towards the end of his review over at the Gospel Coalition,  John Starke addresses what Crouch’s ‘good news’ about power has to do with our view of institutions:

But I thought institutions frustrated creativity and cultivation. Isn’t that what we’re led to think? Crouch recognizes institutions can make that mistake. He also recognizes institutions can cultivate a culture of injustice and oppression. But institutions provide, he contends, roles (think “father” in the institution of the family), arenas (think “galleries” for art), and rules (think “regulations” for day traders on Wall Street) where image bearers can flourish as fathers, artists, and bankers. The power of institutions is to distribute power for comprehensive flourishing, not merely private thriving.

The most helpful and intriguing part of Crouch’s book is his formula for what makes institutions that leave behind cultural significance. They must have four ingredients (artifacts, arenas, rules, and goals) and three generations (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). This is a helpful guide as he then turns to churches and church leaders who have “poured their energies into creating forms of church life that serve just a single generation.” Crouch sees institutions as something of a remedy for churches and other organizations to flourish across space and time, to be a blessing to our children’s children.

I don’t know about you, but it looks like I’ve got another book to read.

Soli Deo Gloria