A gloomy “slouching toward Gomorrah” view of culture leads, I think, to meanness. If we think we are on the losing end of the arc of history, we slide into outrage. If we see ourselves, though, as part of a kingdom that is triumphant in Christ, we ought to display a kind of provocative tranquility. We see those who disagree with us not as threatening to us or to our gospel, but those who, like all of us were, are held captive to an accusing power. We speak with convictional kindness because we love our neighbors, and because we are confident in our gospel. If the gates of hell won’t prevail against Jesus’ onward march, then why are we terrified by Hollywood or Capitol Hill?

These words are a great reminder for us one Sunday after Easter.  The King who was raised is still raised, and is advancing his reign.  His kingdom is dynamic in its expression, which is most evident in the church but also evident anywhere where Christians are making a difference in the name of Christ.  When we have become too comfortable in this world it is very unsettling to us when things around us appear to be shifting rapidly.  Everyone needs and anchor, and if culture is our anchor then we run adrift when it shifts.  But if Christ is our anchor than we remain focused on him.  We draw on his power–power from above–to do his will here below.  We are so heavenly minded that we are of heavenly use.

To live in provocative tranquility means that we are neither anxious about the future nor indulgent in the present.  We live as pilgrims who, because our destination is secure, both sacrifice to reach that destination and never despair when it seems to be far off in the distance.  As a body at EP, this means that we never sit back with a complacent or indulgent spirit when it comes to our own church.  The question for us is never, “Is the current trajectory of the church enough to keep going?”  The question is always what do we need to do to be faithful to Christ as His church to advance his kingdom.

Elders, deacons, staff and myself are constantly engaged in this question of faithfulness.  Currently the deacons are working on whether our church is sending the “right message” when people meet us for the first time, or even consider attending us.  People of all backgrounds are loved and welcomed at EP.  The goal is to make sure that the projection of the church fits the reality within the church.  Needed updates will soon be underway for the Fellowship Hall.  Updates to the Narthex are currently under consideration.  

Our diaconate is also developing a proposal for how to administer funds gifted by Lillian Watkins for the education of young people, including future full ministry workers.   What a blessing from God–He has given us means not only to reach youth for Christ, but to see them through the sending stage to serve Christ.  

Given the provisions that we have been given to equip youth, I have asked our youth and  mission’s committees to think how we can maximize our church’s impact on young people in our area.   We need to take a long term view in this regard.  Increasing our partnership with local ministries like Young Life (whom we already support) is one tangible step to take.  Developing more creative ways of integrating youth into the lives of adult members is another.  Building more continuity between our current outreach efforts and the ministries of the church is yet another area to consider.  

Regardless of where God leads our church in terms of particulars, let us model provocative tranquility in our worship and our work, with our family and our friends.  For we know that “in the Lord our labor is not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58).

On to a few special features of the book that I think make it stand out:

First, he briefly draws our attention to the how the thinking of our own age has predisposed us to approach suffering.  I found this very helpful.  The treatment here is brief, but sets the stage for self reflection.

Second, Grimmond raises “reviling” to its proper place among Christian sufferings.  This emphasis, in turn, carries an implicit call to discipleship for those who are not suffering physically, but are nonetheless called to suffer.

Third, Suffering Well draws attention to another category of suffering.  In addition to general suffering (because of the fall) and suffering due to persecution (which includes reviling), there is suffering for Christ that is not persecution: watching the lost wallow in sin and misery; longing for the salvation of someone and not seeing it; and, seeing fellow Christian’s rebel against God.  I found Grimmond’s treatment of this last category very encouraging.

Fourth, Grimmond is writing with an emphasis on Biblical theology.  He is, therefore, sensitive to the different ways that the Old Testament and New Testament treat suffering.  What we are to make of these differences?  I did not agree with him in every instance, but his engagement is to be applauded.  You will be spiritually richer for it.

What did I disagree with?    Grimmond emphasizes Hebrews and 1st Peter as books that are helpful to address general suffering.  On the other hand, he emphasizes that Romans 8:28 is primarily about God working in persecution.  I find these emphases a bit arbitrary.  Hebrews and 1st Peter are explicitly addressing issues of persecution.  Paul deals with fallen creation in Romans 8, and the pastoral purpose of the letter is arguably much larger than persecution.   But–and this is important–it is a wonderful thing to find such a readable and helpful little book that takes sufferers to this level of depth in Scripture.  You may agree 100% with Grimmond, so buy the book and have a go at it.

I had high hopes for this book because it was coming from Matthias Media.  I was not disappointed.   It is now the first book that I recommend on suffering.

Taking the Scripturally grounded and historically tested model of Augustine’s two cities, I first emphasized how we love the lost.  We co-labor with the city of man for temporal peace.  We labor with the city of God for eternal peace, and we labor to bring eternal peace to our lost neighbors.  We cannot set back in apathy and fulfill the command to love neighbor. Our labor for temporal peace (in the broadest sense) will move us into the public sphere because we know as believers that unrighteousness among a people will ultimately be that people’s ruin.  However, we must be ever mindful of the priority of eternal peace–righteous laws cannot save anyone.  Only a righteous crucified Savior has the power to save.

Second, I emphasized the need to love the brethren.  In that regard, I stressed respecting calling (some believers are called to labor more for change in the temporal sphere than others)  and Christians should not make demands or judge other believers when they spend less time laboring for social change.  Additionally, we need to respect freedom of conscience and the process of sanctification when it comes to the political views of our fellow Christians.  The one righteous standard of God’s word will tend to lead to agreement on many issues, but the fact remains that there will always be some differences in political policy and (perhaps especially) political strategy among Christians.

To this end I referenced the recent treatment of Louie Giglio by some evangelicals who mocked him (in my judgment) and accused him of cowardice or compromise for not choosing to “fight” for his right to say the inaugural benediction.  (Of course, some expressed their thoughts in a more respectful manner.)  My point as a local church pastor is that we shouldn’t treat people with whom we share the Lord’s Supper the way that some Christians treated Giglio.  Moreover, and this is important, those who gain traction in the blogosphere do shape the way Christians respond to one another in a local church context.

Blogs and social media are tools.  We are all responsible for how we use these tools and how we allow them to shape our minds and hearts.  I use them.  You use them as well, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this!  The point is to be aware of how we use these tools and how they are affecting us.   It is certainly o.k. to disagree with a public Christian’s public views in public (via internet), but that disagreement should be conducted in such a way that models local fellowship in tone (love and respect) and in principle (respect for calling and liberty of conscience).

Sunday night Joshua Knott brought more detail to the struggle we face in loving one another in the church.  Since the days of the early church believers have shown the tendency to turn on one another.  Joshua noted that the same word for “to speak against” at the end of James 4 is used by Peter in 1st Peter 3 to describe the way in which the world wrongly slanders believers.  The point?  As Joshua put it, believers in the church can use the same fleshly tactics on one another that the world employs against the church.  The result?  We are so weakened from within as a church that we cannot withstand the assault of the world.

I had a couple of people ask me if there was a particular problem in our church that we were seeking to address, especially when these messages dovetailed the way that they did.  The answer is no and yes.  There is no specific problem in terms of people in conflict.  (There was also no coordination of the messages.)  There is, however, the reality that we are all sinners and that we now have unprecedented access via the net of all manner of bad examples that we can use to justify our sin.  Thankfully there are good examples too.  We need to be wise in choosing which example to emulate.

Decision

When all the facts are in, swift and clear decision is the mark of the true leader…Once a spiritual leader is sure of the will of God, he will go into immediate action, regardless of consequences…The true leader will resist the temptation to procrastinate in reaching a decision, nor will he vacillate after it has been made.

Presbyterians are notoriously slow in making decisions.  The church is not a business, nor is it a mission agency in the formal sense of the term.   Mission agencies are hierarchical organizations governed either by denominational oversight–Mission to the World, for example)–or boards of directors.  For this reason, it is much easier for these agencies to innovate and create than it is for the church.  Mission agencies also recruit their members according to talents and commitment to the mission.  The church doesn’t recruit members.  The church takes in folks with all ranges of talents and value and commitments.  Thus it should be.  We are the body of Christ.  But, all that adds up to taking longer to make decisions (except in obvious moral or doctrinal areas where the decision has been made by Scripture).  When it comes to church leadership there are two common challenges.

First, there is a blended leadership structure in our particular church.  The Session leads the church.  But, there are individuals who are in public leadership positions as well.  The individual church leader (not only the Senior Pastor, but also key leaders in other positions) in a Presbyterian context has only that measure of unilateral decision making granted him or her by the Session (board of elders).  Again, thus it should be.  The key is for everyone to be on the same page.  The Session or the congregation or the Senior Pastor should not expect decisive leadership to be given beyond the boundaries of the authority that has been formally recognized.

Second, even if a church leader is granted the formal authority to be decisive, the leader is not in an organization where those who are under his leadership can be compelled to follow.  The CEO may fire subordinates, as may the Mission Agency president.  But, the local church leader cannot do this; indeed, they should not desire to fire those under their leadership.  (These folks are the flock of God, not employees or mercenaries.)    Quite often a local church leader may be ceded the authority to make a decision, only to find that after it was made that the decision resonated with very few and the results were minimal.

So, make sure the lines are drawn clearly, then everyone listen and pray hard.  When our desire to be decisive as leaders is mixed with courage, humility and prayer things tend to work out well.  Courage is not only needed to storm the gates of hell.  Courage is also vital to dealing lovingly with the heart issues that bog down the church.  Humility desires to keep Christ and his Kingdom at the center, and never to beat or drive the flock of God as if they are mercenaries or employees.  Prayer is the nursery in which all these virtues of the leaders take root and grow under the blessing of the Spirit.

I’ll sign off by letting Sander’s words stand alone on courage and humility:

Courage

Contrast these two records: “The doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews”(John 20:19) and “They saw the boldness of Peter and John” (Acts 4:13).  These were the same disciples confronted by the same Jews at an interval of only a short time.  Whence this new courage?  Inspiration gives the answer: “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit.”  And when the Holy Spirit is ceded control of the whole personality, He imparts “not the spirit of fear, but of power…” (II Tim. 1:7).

The courage of a leader is demonstrated in his being willing to face unpleasant and even devastating facts and conditions with equanimity, and then acting with firmness in the light of them, even though it means incurring personal unpopularity.  Human inertia and opposition do not deter him.  His courage is not a thing of the moment, but continues until the task is fully done.

Humility

In the realm of politics and commerce, humility is a quality neither coveted nor required.  There the leader needs and seeks prominence and publicity.  But in God’s scale of values humility stands very high.  Self-effacement, not self-advertisement, was Christ’s definition of leadership.  In training His disciples for their coming positions of authority, He told them they must not be pompous and overbearing like the Oriental despots, but humble and lowly like their Master (Matt. 20:25-27).  The spiritual leader will choose the hidden pathway of sacrificial service and the approval of His Lord rather than the flamboyant assignment and the adulation of the unspiritual crowd.

Getting back into Sanders has been spiritually refreshing and challenging.  Chapter 7, “Qualities Essential to Leadership Part I,” is a very challenging chapter.  The chapter is a humbling tour de force on the leader’s character.  He addresses in succession: discipline, vision, wisdom, decision, courage, and humility.   This chapter is one of the longest in the book.  One reads here sentences that others have spawned into books and seminars, testifying to the seminal influence of this work.  I think the best thing to do with this chapter is to bring forward a salient quotation from each section. Today we will draw from the sections on Discipline and Vision.

Discipline

Many who take courses in leadership in the hope of attaining it fail because they have never learned to follow.  They are like the boys who were playing war in the street. When a passerby inquired why they were all so quiet and were doing nothing, one lad replied, “We are all generals. We can’t get anyone to do the fighting.”

I’ve often said that true leaders make the best followers as well. They know that someone needs to lead, and they know how to discern the difference between selfish ambition and strong godly leadership.

Vision

Vision includes optimism and hope.  No pessimist ever made a great leader.  The pessimist sees a difficulty in every opportunity.  The optimist sees an opportunity in every difficulty.  The pessimist, always seeing the difficulties before possibilities, tends to hold back the man of vision who desires to push ahead.  The cautious man has his part to play in helping his optimistic leader to be realistic as well.  But he must watch lest his native and now ingrained caution clips the wings of the man God intends to soar.  The cautious man draws valuable lessons from history and tradition, but he is in danger of being chained to the past. The man who sees the difficulties so clearly that he does not discern the possibilities will be unable to impart inspiration to his followers.

If you are an optimistic visionary, listen to the cautions brought forward.  Don’t let them dampen dreams stirred by Scripture and prayer.   Instead, let these cautions fill out your vision with plans of action that take account of all the obstacles.  Fools truly do rush in where angels fear to tread.  Also, remember that you are dealing with people who may have accumulated their fears and hesitations through wounds.  Listen for the wounds (have vision to see through objections to the heart issues that they reveal), and seek to apply healing.

If you are cautious, don’t unduly stamp out the dreams of those who are more optimistic.  Let them challenge you to see that the gospel is the power of God for salvation, and that God can do more than we can ask or imagine.  Indeed, God is most glorified when the mission has been so vast that He has had to be put in the center to accomplish it.   If your caution stems from unhealed wounds (you’ve been burned), then revisit those places with the gospel and open up to the leader in your midst.  Leaders need to know where their followers have been burned so that they can apply gospel salve to painful places.

I’ll return to Sanders list tomorrow.  Once again I am drawn to the throne of grace to seek help in my leadership time of need.  I am also more in awe of Jesus’ leadership.  Praise God for Jesus Christ, the pioneer of our salvation.

The tradition version of the Apostles’ Creed has the line, “he was crucified, died and was buried.  He descended into hell.”  This is the version that we say together at our church.  However, the traditional version of the Creed is actually not the oldest version of the Creed.  The line, “He descended into hell,” does not appear until the late fourth century (A.D. 390) in the history of the church.  It appears in a rendition of the Creed by Rufinus.   And, the phrase only appears in Rufinus’ Greek version of the Creed.  He does not preserve it in the Roman version.  Why?  It is clear from the context of Rufinus writing that he does not intend the phrase to mean more than “he descended into the grave.”  In Greek, Hades could refer to the grave, or to hell as a place of punishment.  It would seem that Rufinus left the phrase out of his Roman version to avoid the confusion.  So, Wayne Grudem summarizes:

This means, therefore, that until A.D. 650 no version of the Creed included this phrase with the intention of saying that Christ “descended into hell”–the only version to include the phrase before A.D. 650 gives it a different meaning.  At this point one wonders if the term apostolic can in any sense be applied to this phrase, or if it really has a rightful place in a creed whose title claims for itself descent from the earliest apostles of Christ” (Systematic Theology, 1994, p. 587).

For this reason, you may have been to a church that, though using the traditional form of the Creed, felt compelled to place an asterisk by this phrase to clarify that Jesus did not go to hell after he died.  First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Jackson, MS does this.  Following John Calvin, these churches want to retain the phrase while making it clear that Christ did not descend into hell physically or spiritually after his death.  Rather, Christ bore the full wrath of hell on the cross for all those who were saved by faith in the promises prior to his death and all those who would be saved after his death.  Christ bore hell on the cross.  As Calvin puts it:

We must seek a sure explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ’s descent into hell.  The explanation given to us in God’s Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation.  If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual.  No–it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment.  For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death.  A little while ago we referred to the prophets’s statement that “the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him,” “he was wounded for our transgressions,” by the Father, “he was bruised for our infirmities”[(Is. 53:5ff.].  By these words he means that Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge–submitting himself even as the accused–to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained.  All–with this one exception: “He could not be held by the pangs of death” [Acts 2:24ff].  No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked!  Those who–on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it–say that the order is reversed in this way are making a trifling and ridiculous objection.  The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man (Institutes, 2.16.10; Vol. 1, pp. 515-16 Battles’ edition.)

Four things to note from Calvin here:

1. Calvin had been ridiculed for taking this position by Sebastian Castellio.  16h century rhetoric enters into this discussion when he says it is a “trifling and ridiculous objection” to challenge the place where this phrase occurs in the creed.
2. Calvin’s main point is excellent: Christ did not simply die an ordinary death on the cross.  He underwent “the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgement.”  He bore the wrath of hell as our substitute.
3. Calvin suggests that the Creed does not intend to given a chronological order of events when it comes to phrase “he descended into hell.”  Instead, Calvin says that this is to give us the spiritual dimension of the death of Christ: “that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God.”
4. Calvin emphasizes that the greater price that Christ paid on the cross was the price that we cannot see with the naked eye, “suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.”  A good word for those who reduce the cross down to a horrible death at the hands of men, while failing to see that it was the stroke that Justice gave which was most horrible and terrifying to Christ, and should be most horrible and terrifying to us if we don’t know Christ as our substitute.

Calvin was no iconoclast when it came to the history of the church.  He sought to preserve that which was redeemable theologically from the catholic tradition whenever possible.  Calvin finds in this phrase a helpful unpacking of the death of Christ on the cross.  I agree with Calvin, so long as people understand the creed in the manner in which he explains it. I have not seen, however, historical evidence that the 7th century church understood the phrase in manner that Calvin advocates.   (If someone else has that evidence please send it along.)  

I have sympathies with those who have removed the phrase “he descended into hell” from their recitation of the Creed.  Jesus did not go to hell after he died on the Christ.  And, this phrase is a late addition to the Creed.  Much of the Creed reads naturally in the order of redemptive history.   So, the person confessing faith with the Creed is not to be faulted for assuming that “he descended into hell” is the next redemptive historical event in the ministry of Christ.   Indeed, in order for matters to be clear they will have had to have been taught this truth, either right before confessing their faith (which can be cumbersome week after week) or in some other setting (communicants class, new members seminar, etc.).  Parents need to be clear on this for themselves and instruct their children.  Pastors and elders need to consider where they are making this clear for the flock in the teaching ministry of the church.  If we are using the Creed regularly in worship, Sessions (elder boards) should consider whether the statement needs to be clarified, both as a reminder to the faithful and to avoid confusion for those who are visiting the congregation for worship.

Tomorrow I will look at 1st Peter 3:19, the main passage of Scripture marshaled to support Christ’s literal descent into hell after he died.  For now, let’s be thankful that Christ bore hell on the cross as our substitute.  If we take a few moments to let His cross work sink in and to thank Him for it, other matters troubling our minds today may well recede into the background while we sing in our hearts, “What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul.  What wondrous love is the, O my soul.”

What does it look like to not listen?  Do you sit there, hearing what someone is saying, but all the while waiting to jump in with your own thoughts?  Do you lose track of what someone is saying because you are so anxious to redirect them or correct them?  Do people say things that throw you emotionally to the point that you cannot continue to listen to them?  Instead, you stand there with your mind racing about what they just said, unable to listen to what they are presently saying?  Most of us are guilty of these listening failures some of the time at least.  We need to get at the heart issues that underlie our failure to listen.  Why are we so quick to judge?  Why do our hearts shut down and our veins course with defensiveness, anger or fear when someone hits a certain theme?  If we get to the heart of these types of responses then we will find a gap in gospel understanding.

Great leaders are very good listeners.    Listening is not simply a means by which we respect other people (it is that at a minimum).  Listening is a means whereby we allow them to work out in our hearing, with our attention, what God is doing in their lives.  Our fast-paced, distraction-filled culture does not promote godly listening (e.g., husband on smart phone while wife is talking).  Man was not created to be alone.  One of the things missing for Adam in the garden was someone to listen to him and empathize with his experience.  So, God created Eve.  The marriage relationship is a special place where when listening you should be prized as a means of bringing forth fruit.  But listening is for all relationships.  James says that every Christian is called “to be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James1:19).  Do you listen?

Lets hear Dietrich Bonhoeffer on this theme:

The first service that one owes to others in the fellowship consists in listening to them. Just as love to God begins with listening to His Word, so the beginning of love for the brethren is learning to listen to them. It is God’s love for us that He not only gives us His Word but also lends us His ear.

So it is His work that we do for our brother when we learn to listen to him. Christians, especially ministers, so often think they must always contribute something when they are in the company of others, that this is the one service they have to render. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking.

Many people are looking for an ear that will listen. They do not find it among Christians, because these Christians are talking where they should be listening. But he who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either; he will be doing nothing but prattle in the presence of God too.

This is the beginning of the death of the spiritual life, and in the end there is nothing left but spiritual chatter and clerical condescension arrayed in pious words. One who cannot listen long and patiently will presently be talking beside the point and be never really speaking to others, albeit he be not conscious of it.   Anyone who thinks that his time is too valuable to spend keeping quiet will eventually have no time for God and his brother, but only for himself and for his own follies.”

From, Life Together (New York: Harper and Row, 1954), 97-98.