God of Care, God of Covenant

Under a broom tree, Elijah sat there. He didn’t feel like eating and resting. He was grumbling, murmuring, and thinking. Thinking can be tiring. Elijah’s psychological state wasn’t so good. “It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers” (1 Kgs. 19:4b). He was restive and depressed. He needed to rest. So “he lay down and slept” (19:5a). God didn’t say anything at this point.

Elijah was restive and restless. God knew that Elijah couldn’t hear a thing until he took some rest. Sometimes God addresses us in our restiveness. But most of the time, God refuses to do so. His refusal is not because God dislikes this condition. Rather, He knows that we often fail to listen in this condition in which we pray in mono-logue, not di-alogue. Monologue is part of prayer; however, prayer is not about monologue. In the narrative, God waited for a better moment. God’s better moment, in Elijah’s eyes, may mean God’s absence and silence. But in God’s sight, there was a reason for His “absent-silence.” Philip Yancey writes,

“When I am tempted to complain about God’s lack of presence, I remind myself that God has much more reason to complain about my lack of presence. I reserve a few minutes a day for God, but how many times do I drown out or ignore the quiet voice that speaks to my conscience and my life?...Every relationship involves two free partners. With my computer I have a mechanical bond: I turn it on and expect it to respond in predictable programmed ways. No relationship with human beings work that way, whether between friends, husband and wife, work colleagues, or parents and children. Each involves missed cues, conflicting schedules, varying moods and a dose of autonomy. Each goes through times of closeness as well as seasons that might be called arid.”[1]

God is our free partner. He is our covenantal partner. The former one indicates voluntary participation, creativity, and autonomy. The latter idea limits one’s freedom and indicates boundaries. God is absolutely free in relation to us; He is voluntarily towards us. As Calvin said,

“In understanding faith it is not merely a question of knowing that God exists, but also—and this especially—of knowing what is his will toward us. For it is not so much our concern to know who he is in himself, as what he wills to be toward us. Now, therefore, we hold faith to be a knowledge of God’s will toward us, perceived from his Word” (Institutes, 3.2.6).

Calvin is not interested in speculating the God as He is in himself, but the God as He is towards us. This is God’s voluntary act towards fallen, corrupted sinners. “God wills towards us” leads to the Incarnation of the Son—God the Son is bounded in the form of slave.

1 Kgs. 19:5b—“And behold, an angel touched him and said to him, ‘Arise and eat.’” Before addressing Elijah’s spiritual depression, God took care of his physical exhaustion. Biblical spirituality is not only about our spiritual life or psychological wholeness. It’s about a whole person: body, mind, and soul. God is concerned our physical needs no less than our spiritual and psychological needs. This is God’s care for Elijah.[2]

This is how David G. Benner, Professor of Psychology and Spirituality at Richmont Graduate University in Atlanta, defines Soul Care:

“As a working definition, let us understand soul as referring to the whole person, including the body, but with particular focus on the inner world of thinking, feeling, and willing. Care of souls can thus be understood as the care of persons in their totality, with particular attention to their inner lives.” He then continues, “This can never be accomplished by ignoring a person’s physical existence or the external world o behavior. Properly understood, soul care nurtures the inner life and guides the expression of this inner life through the body into external behavior. This is what it means to speak of care of souls as the care of persons in their totality.”[3]

Through His interaction with Elijah, we can say that God is a soul care practitioner.

In the cave, God fed him. “And he looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water. “And he ate and drank and lay down again” (19:6). This is God’s timely providence. How did the angel of the Lord serve him food and water? We don’t know. But Elijah ate and then slept. God provided without a word. But this non-verbal care should remind Elijah of what happened to him before:

“And the word of the Lord came to him, ‘Depart from here and turn eastward and hide yourself by the brook Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. You shall drink from the brook, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there.’ So he went and did according to the word of the Lord…And the ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening, and he drank from the brook.” (1 Kgs. 17:2-6)

When Elijah lay down, was he thinking about the providence and the mysterious way of God? He first lay down with frustration and exhaustion. The second time he lay down, he entered into meditation and wonder—he might not understand the present, but he couldn’t deny the past.

The second time the angel of the Lord came and touched Elijah again, saying, “Arise and eat, for the journey is too great for you” (19:7). Elijah regained his strength from rest and food. He journeyed for forty days and forty nights to Horeb, the mount of God (19:8). Horeb is also known as Mount Sinai—the place where Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, where God made a covenant with Israel, and where Israel said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient” (Exod. 24:7; 19:8).

“Why Mt. Horeb? Because deep in Elijah’s history, deep in his spiritual experience, he was aware that this was a place of possibility: this was the place where the people of Israel encountered God when they needed God most.”[4]

In the most unexpected place, the God of universe became the God of Israel. The transcendent God cannot be domesticated, but He localizes himself as the imminent God.  Israel as sojourners became covenantal partners. On the way to the Promised Land—the place where Israel had no idea what it would be like—God first entered into a covenantal relationship with Israel. The people of Israel encountered God the most in the desert because God intensely engaged with Israel with His words.

“It is clear that the Torah mediated by Moses at Mount Sinai is not fixed, closed, and settled at the termination of Moses’ work. The Torah as mediation includes an open-ended dynamic and an ongoing vitality that goes beyond Moses…The concrete practice of Torah consists not simply in having a scroll from Moses as a fixed, settled law. Rather the practice of Torah consists in regular, stated, public meetings in which Israel…is constituted and reconstituted. This meeting is presented in the text as a replication of Sinai, whereby Israel was constituted in speaking and hearing, only now the reconstitution is performed in different times and places and circumstances, and with different lead characters…The purpose of this Torah-centered meeting was to permit the assembly to become Israel once again.”[5]

Mount Horeb implies possibility, revelation, reengagement, reconstitution, and possible Torah-centered meeting. Is it possible that Elijah journeyed to Mt. Horeb because it was there God journeyed downward towards Israel? Is it possible that he journeyed there to re-visit the faith of his ancestors and re-engage with the law of God in order to look for personal renewal and revival?

In the exchange of speaking and hearing the Torah, the covenant can be re-enacted. Horeb is called “the mount of God” because God revealed himself as the God of covenant there. Elijah knew that.

---

[1] Prayer: Does It Make Any Difference? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2006), p. 201.  

[2] When Jesus saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, he fed them with five loaves and two fish (Matt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:30-44; Lk. 9:10-17; Jn. 6:1-14).

[3] Care of Souls: Revisioning Christian Nurture and Counsel (Grand Rapids: Baker; Cumbria: Paternoster, 1998), p. 22.

[4] Ruth Haley Barton, Invitation to Solitude and Silence: Experiencing God’s Transforming Presence (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010), p. 87.

[5] Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), pp. 583-584.

Writing and Living

In the article Taking Pen in Hand (Christian Century, Sept. 07, 2010, pp. 22-25), Parker J. Palmer considered writing as an act of faith. He said that he wanted to be a writer when he was in his twenties. But he didn’t write much. One day he read Hemingway’s words, who said, “A writer is distinguished by the fact that he writes.” He was inspired by this statement that writing is not to get published and sell many books. Rather, a writer is to write.

“I came to understand that it’s the faithful doing of the thing, the willingness to work hard at the craft without worrying too much about outcomes, that makes you a writer. The paradox is that you are more likely to get outcomes when you let go of getting outcomes; it frees you from the ego’s grip. There is a parallel here to the faith journey: seek your life and you will lose it, lose your life and you will find it.”

Writing is part of my living. I like to think. I like to drink coffee. I like to read. I like to write. Sometimes I dream of what I really want to be in the future: A pastor? A theologian? A teacher? A writer? If a writer doesn’t have to get published and make a living out of it, I think I want to be a writer. And I can be a writer. (A bad writer is still a writer.)

“Writing is not about getting a headful of ideas lined up in an orderly fashion and then downloading them to the page; that is not writing but typing…Writing for me is a process of thinking and feeling my way into things that baffle me, discovering more about those things—and about what is inside me—at every step of the way.”

To write is to discover and create. It’s a creative process. It’s a journey. Most of the time, I have a general concept of what I’m going to write. But I don’t have a whole picture of what I am going to write. While I am writing, writing itself leads to specific words, lines, sentences, and paragraphs.  At the end of the process, I sometimes say, “I didn’t think about that. I can write this much?”

But when I want to write something with complete control of the entire process, such as knowing what to write in every paragraph, I can’t write and develop into an essay. Writing reminds me of the faith journey that I am in. When I want to have full control of my life—my surrounding, my future, my family plan, I’m overwhelmed, even paralyzed, by how much I am not in control. That makes me stop living well. I stop living because I think too much about living just like I stop writing because I am too concerned about the overall writing. Rather, when I learn to participate in life by fulfilling my daily responsibilities with gratitude, then I live. I live well, and a lengthy essay will be the outcome at the end. Writing, living, and following Christ all point to the same direction: “Seek your life and you will lose it, lose your life and you will find it.”

“The faith journey is less about making a big leap of faith than it is about putting one faithless foot in front of the other, and doing it again and again. What happens as you walk that way is sometimes transformed by grace.”

A Life of Seeing

A contemplative living is a life of seeing: seeing through the surface and seeing beyond the reality. In life, it requires seeing. The more I read books written by those who practice solitude, the more I am drawn to this kind of living. I don't mean that I want to live in a remote place where I see no one but Jesus (Mk. 9:8). However, I want to be in touch with reality and yet live, play, eat, and see things differently. It's not that I want to glorify and magnify God in every single moment. I wish I have that desire, but I don't. But I do want to know that God always seeks Himself in me.

Thomas Merton wrote a letter to Dom Francis Decroix on August 21, 1967:

"God is not a 'problem' and we who live the contemplative life have learned by experience that one cannot know God as long as one seeks to solve 'the problem of God.' To seek to solve the problem of God is to seek to see one's own eyes. One cannot see his own eyes because they are that with which he sees and God is the light by which we see--by which we see not a clearly defined 'object' called God, but everything else in the invisible One. God is then the Seer and the Seeing, but in earth He is not seen. In heaven, He is the Seer, the Seeing and the Seen. God seeks Himself in us...But indeed we exist solely for this, to be the place He has chosen for His presence, His manifestation in the world, His epiphany" (William H. Shannon and Christine M. Bochen (editors), Thomas Merton: A Life in Letters, The Essential Collection (Ave Maria Press, 2008), pp. 166-167.).  

Spiritual Formation and Growth in Jonah

Spiritual Formation and Growth in the Book of Jonah

(The English translation was provided by Susana and Daniel.)

The book of Jonah is set in two scenes, each separated by the Lord's commands to Jonah. In the first scene (1:1 – 2:10), God first spoke, then Jonah prayed. In the second scene (3:1-4:11), God spoke again, and Jonah prayed once again. This is the main purpose of the book of Jonah – to record the relationship between God and Jonah, their conversations, and their interactions.

God's word came onto Jonah for the first time (1:1). The message God wanted Jonah to relay is clear and simple -“Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”Jonah evaded and rejected God's call. 4:2 tells us the reason behind Jonah's refusal: “O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” God's very character became the reason for Jonah's rejection of God's call.

Jonah knew the Old Testament scriptures (Exod. 34:6, Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:15). He rebelled and did not obey God's command. And yet, he knew God. He knew that if he were to declare God's judgment and the people of Nineveh showed remorse, then God would have reneged and not inflicted the promised wrath. In the Old Testament, a prophet's authenticity is determined by whether or not his prophecies are fulfilled (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 28:6-9). If Jonah's prophecy were not fulfilled due to God's reversal, then his own credibility and status would have been damaged.

The Lord spoke to Jonah once again, repeating the previous message (3:1-2). “Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh…” (3:3). “He (Jonah) proclaimed: ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned’” (3:4). The Bible says: “The Ninevites believed God…Let them give up their evil ways and their violence” (3:5-9). [To understand the Ninevites’ evil ways, reference the Book of Nahum.] “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.” (3:10). “But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the Lord…” (4:1-2a)

Jonah was not pleased with the Lord’s “compassion”. He was even more displeased with the fact that the Ninevites did not receive judgment, but he prayed to the Lord and reasoned with the Lord. He brought his discontent before the Lord. Jonah did not put down his discontent before praying to the Lord. Just the opposite, Jonah came before the Lord with this “unspiritual” situation. Here, the Old Testament gives us important instruction regarding spiritual formation and growth. Jonah did not change before approaching the Lord. On the contrary, his actual circumstances, personality, and weaknesses became the means for him to experience the Lord.

Jonah came before the Lord, not asking the Lord to mold him, but wanting to present his problems before God and to wrestle with God. During this process, Jonah was unwittingly molded by God. Regardless of a person’s situation, if one can genuinely meet with God, put down his/her “should be” attitude (i.e.: a relationship with God should be like this), and accept his/her own condition “as is” (i.e.: the present situation as it really is), then our earthly life would become a godly life.

Jonah had a response to the Lord’s first command (1:1; 4:2). However, the biblical writer purposely split the Lord and Jonah’s conversation into two parts. In between these two parts, the writer placed three dramatic events (1:3-16; 1:17-2:10; 3:1-10). This is the writer’s narrative technique. The temporary discontinuity, gaps and omissions are meant to cause the readers to reflect upon the events that happened in between the conversations. The Lord spoke to Jonah, but at the same time, actively worked in Jonah’s life. In between the two commands, the Lord worked in Jonah’s life. His speech and actions are inseparable.

Jonah, being the Lord’s prophet, knew Him. However, people who know the Lord need to repent, grow, and be renewed too. Jonah’s response to the Lord (4:2) reflects his faith. The development of the story reflects that Jonah’s response to the Lord and understanding of the Lord were not enough to overcome his inner conditions. It affected how he viewed certain things (ex: how he viewed the Ninevites). He needed to repent, grow and be renewed. The Lord not only wanted Jonah to obey his command, He wanted Jonah’s all. Jonah fled toward Tarshish. The Lord “sent a great wind on the sea” – or one could say “the Lord threw a great wind from the sea” (1:4; In the original language, the same verb is used in 1:5, 12, 15). “All the sailors were afraid…they threw the cargo into the sea…” (1:5). “‘Pick me up and throw me into the sea,’ he (Jonah) replied” (1:12). “Then they (the sailors) took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm.” (1:15). Jonah knew he was the reason the Lord “threw this wind”. He was fleeing, but he also knew that he was fleeing from “the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the land.” (1:9). Jonah fled; the Lord sought. Jonah hid; the Lord revealed. The biblical writer does not explicitly tell us Jonah’s emotional response. On the contrary, the sailors gradually returned to the Lord. “All the sailors were afraid (it carries a notion of awe and respect) (1:5). “This terrified (it carries a notion of awe and respect) them” (1:10). “At this time the men greatly feared (it carries a notion of awe and respect) the Lord…” (1:16). From being “afraid and each cried out to his own God” to “greatly feared the Lord”, this was the change in the sailor’s faith and hearts. As a “Hebrew who worships the Lord” (1:9) and prophet, did Jonah’s faith and heart change under God’s wind?

For the sake of seeking Jonah, the Lord sent a great wind on the sea. It led to the sailors throwing Jonah into the great sea. While Jonah was in the sea, the Lord “provided a great fish to swallow Jonah.” (1:17; the Lord’s “providence” also appears in 4:6-8) and “the Lord commanded the fish and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.” (2:10). This great fish was not a tool of God’s judgment but a tool of his salvation. Jonah fled; the Lord sought. Just as it says in Psalm 18:16: “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters.” The Lord provided this great fish, because it was a suitable environment for speaking to Jonah. More importantly, Jonah can reflect – “When my life was ebbing away.” (2: 7a) and Jonah can converse with the Lord – “I remembered you, Lord (2:7b). The prayers in the Old Testament were not only conversations between the Lord and people, but they were also self-reflections. Psalm 42:5 – “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.” The Spirit lives in our hearts and can reflect truthfully – “O my soul…” is actually another way to meet with God. Proverbs 4:23 – “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” To guard our hearts, we must know our hearts. This is an important aspect of Christian spirituality. Self-reflection is necessary in spiritual formation and growth.

Jonah’s prayer from inside the fish is a thankful prayer. Jonah expressed gratitude for his Saving Lord. Jonah fled from the Lord’s command; it can be said that he lost his direction in life. When he met with the Lord inside the fish, he was able to say “the engulfing waters threatened me, the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head. To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath me barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O Lord my God” (2:5-6). This was a proclamation of faith. It was when Jonah rediscovered and secured his direction in life. Jonah found comfort in the great sea and salvation in the abyss. He gave “a song of thanksgiving” as a sacrifice to the Lord; salvation comes from the Lord (2:9). Jonah’s response after finding direction in life: No more fleeing, start his journey anew. “What I have vowed I will make good” (2:9). The experience inside the fish led to a turning point in his faith and a return of his heart. This is the ending of the first scene of Jonah.

Jonah’s second scene: the Lord’s message, Jonah’s obedience, the Ninevites’ repentance, the Lord’s change of mind and decision to not bring on the destruction he had promised. “Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry” (4:1). The Lord said to Jonah “‘Have you any right to be angry?” (4:4). In Chapter 4, Jonah’s discontent response to the Lord sharply contrasts with his experience with God and the growth in his life from the first scene of the book of Jonah. It seems Jonah has not improved much. From a spiritual formation and growth standpoint, we can see Jonah’s instability. In fact, we are all similar to Jonah; we might even understand his struggle. Old Testament Scholars Dillard and Longman said: “…Jonah is not a flat, but a complex character. That is, in his spiritual ups and downs he acts like a real person. This roundness of character is one of the reasons that Jonah is such a fascinating and rich book” [Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 394.]. The Lord asked a person who has a complex character and has spiritual ups and downs (Jonah); “Have you any right to be angry?” The Lord knows Jonah. The Lord pastored Jonah. The Lord’s question was specifically for Jonah. He wanted Jonah to grow; He wanted him to understand how the Lord who is “slow to anger” was patiently pastoring him.

The Lord also asked Jonah: “Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?” (4:9a). Between the two questions, “the Lord provided a vine…to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort and Jonah was very happy about the vine. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die and said, ‘it would be better for me to die than to live.’” (4:6-8). From anger to happiness to being faint and wanting to die, the Lord was with Jonah. The Lord provided a vine, provided a worm, which chewed the vine, provided a scorching east wind, just as he provided a great fish to swallow Jonah. Each time the Lord provided, the purpose was to pastor this spiritually wavering Jonah. The Lord wanted Jonah to know “You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?” (4:10-11)

If you can cherish this vine, how could I not cherish the Ninevites? You said you are angry enough to die, and to you that is reasonable. You did not tend or grow the vine, but yet you cherish it. When you cherished it, was I displeased? I cherish them; “Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left and many cattle as well.” Why are you displeased? Is it right for you to be angry? You have to understand that I cherish the Ninevites just as you cherish this vine. I provided this vine for you to understand my heart, for you to understand your reply from before – “O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home?…I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. “ (4:2). The grace and compassion you show to this vine is exactly the path to understanding My heart.

The Lord’s judgment on Nineveh and whether the Ninevites repented was actually just the background of the relationship between Jonah and the Lord. Jonah was the target of the Lord’s message. The different things that the Lord did were to have Jonah repent, be renewed and grow. Jonah was actually a miniature Israel, representing that Israel was not yet able to be a light for the Gentiles and bring the Lord’s salvation. (Isaiah 49:6). The book of Jonah was for the Israelites to repent, be renewed and to grow. This is also the message for us today.

The Book of Jonah did not have any conclusions; it did not record Jonah’s response. The Biblical writer purposely left Jonah silent. The author reserved a space for us to stop and think about Jonah’s response: if we were Jonah, how would we reply? The author’s open ending spurs us to use our lives to finish Jonah’s story.

Old Testament Scholar Walter Brueggemann said, “Israel’s text, and therefore Israel and Israel’s God, are always in the middle of an exchange, unable to come to ultimate resolution. There may be momentary or provisional resolution, but because both parties are intensely engaged and are so relentlessly verbal, we are always sure that there will be another speech, another challenge, another invitation, another petition, another argument, which will reopen the matter and expend the provisional settlement…For Israel and for Israel’s God, there is no deeper joy, no more serious requirement, no more inescapable burden, than to be reengaged in the process of exchange that never arrives but is always on the way” [Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), pp. 83-84

從約拿書看靈命培育和屬靈成長

I wrote  從約拿書看靈命培育和屬靈成長 for the summer retreat 2010.  I finished writing it around March-April/2010. Around that period of time, I was frustrated in ministry. That frustration subtly permeated through the analysis. It became a lens for me to interpret the life of Jonah and the life of God in the Book of Jonah. I don’t think I could understand the dynamic of the Scripture, Jonah, and God through the lens of spiritual formation if I wasn’t that frustrated. It’s just difficult to understand Jonah’s frustration if I don’t have any frustration in life. Or I don’t admit that I’m frustrated by something and pretend that there is no gap between faith and living.

We can’t understand how God embraced Jonah as well as his frustration if we don’t learn to realize that God embraces our negativity more than we can embrace our own. It’s hard for Christians to grow toward maturity if we fail to place human “negative” emotion in its right place. How many times do we downplay negative emotion in the church? He is depressed because he is weak in faith. She speaks too loud and out of control. There is something wrong in her spirituality. This kind of unhealthy spirituality doesn’t promote Christian wholeness (psychology) and holiness (theology). It only promotes disgraceful and guilty Christians with low self-esteem.

This analysis of the Book of Jonah is to show that there is a healthy approach to look at Christian struggles in Christian journey. Embrace, but not exclude, negativity. Integrate, but not indulge. God didn’t let Jonah get away with his frustration or emotional breakdown. Rather, God guided him through with different visual aids. God’s compassion and graciousness is much bigger than Jonah’s frustration.

Last year, my own frustration became the source of my theological creativity to interpret the Scripture and to understand a reciprocal relationship between humans and God. God always wants to spiritually form us into His own image. I think that Jonah grew up at the end of the story even though the text doesn’t say that Jonah learned a lesson. In life, there is no text to say that when we get to a certain point in life, we grow up. I believe that as long as we face and embrace our inner darkness with God’s boundless mercy as our theological backbone, we just kind of grow up.

從約拿書看靈命培育和屬靈成長

(Spiritual Formation and Growth in the Book of Jonah)

約拿書分為兩幕。兩幕由上帝對約拿的命令來區分。在第一幕1:1-2:10，上帝先說話，約拿禱告。在第二幕3:1-4:11，上帝再說話，約拿再禱告。這是約拿書簡要的大綱。記載了上帝和約拿之間的關係，他們的對話，他們的互動。

上帝的話第一次臨到約拿身上（1:1）。上帝要約拿傳的信息是清楚和簡要的—“你起來往尼尼微大城去，向其中的居民呼喊，因為他們的惡達到我面前”（1:2）。約拿逃避，拒絕上帝的呼召。4:2告訴我們約拿拒絕背後的原因—“耶和華啊，我在本國的時候，豈不是這樣說嗎？我知道你是有恩典、有憐憫的神，不輕易發怒，有豐盛的慈愛，並且後悔不降所說的災。。。” 上帝的屬性成為約拿拒絕上帝呼召的原因。

約拿是認識舊約的(出34:6; 民 14:18; 尼9:17; 詩86:15)。他反叛，不服從上帝的命令。但他是認識上帝的。他知道若他宣告上帝的審判，尼尼微人略有悔意, 上帝便會後悔不降所說的災。此外，在舊約中，先知信息是否應驗是確定先知身份的真偽（申18:20-22； 耶28:6-9）。約拿宣講的信息因上帝的反復而未能應驗，他自己的身份亦受損。

上帝再次對約拿說話，重複先前的信息（3:1-2）。“約拿便照耶和華的話起來，往尼尼微去”（3:3）。他宣告說 ：再等四十日 ，尼尼微必傾覆了（3:4）。聖經說：“尼尼微人信服上帝…回頭離開所行的惡道”（3:5-9；尼尼微人的惡可參看那鴻書）。神察看他們的行為，見他們離開惡道，祂就後悔，不把所說的災禍降與他們了（3:10）。“這事約拿大大不悅，且甚發怒，就禱告耶和華說。。。”(4:1-2上) 約拿不滿上帝“後悔”。他更不滿尼尼微人不需接受審判。但他對上帝禱告，跟上帝理論，把他的不滿帶到上帝面前。約拿不是先放下他的不滿，才對上帝禱告。剛剛相反，約拿藉著這些所謂‘不屬靈’的景況才來到上帝面前禱告。這是舊約聖經對靈命培育與屬靈成長一個重要的指標：約拿不是先變好才去跟上帝相交，反而是他的真實景況，個性，缺點成為他經歷上帝的條件。

約拿來到上帝面前，不是求上帝塑造他，他只是把心中的問題帶到上帝面前，與上帝摔交。但這過程中，約拿不知不覺地被祂塑造。不論人的真實景況如何，能夠坦蕩地跟上帝相交，放下‘應是’的態度 【即：與上帝相交應該是這樣的】，接受自己的‘所是’【即：現況原本是這樣的】。這樣才是肉身成道 （不是道成肉身）的信仰生活。

上帝第一次的命令，約拿是有回應的（1:1;4:2）。但聖經作者刻意把上帝與約拿的對話拆成兩半，在對話中間記敘三件戲劇性的事件 （1:3-16； 1:17-2:10；3:1-10）。這是作者的敘事策略。這種時間上的中斷（temporary discontinuity），斷層 (gaps)，和省略(omissions)是要讀者（我們）去思索對話中間發生的事情。向約拿說話的上帝，同時用行動駕入約拿的生命。在兩次的命令之間（1:1-2；3:1-2），上帝在約拿的生命中行動。祂的說話和行動是分不開的。

約拿作為上帝的先知必定是認識祂的。但認識上帝的人也需要回轉，更新和成長。約拿對上帝的回應（4:2）反映約拿的信仰。故事的發展亦反映約拿對上帝的回應和理解還未能支配他的內心，影響他對一些事物暨定的看法（例如：對尼尼微人的看法）。他需要回轉，更新和成長。上帝不但希望約拿遵行祂的命令，祂更要得著約拿這個人。約拿逃跑，逃往 他 施 去。上帝“使 海 中 起 大 風”。或說“上帝向海拋出大風”（1：4；同一個動詞用在1:5, 12, 15）。水手懼怕，將船上的貨物拋在海中。約拿說：“你們將我抬起來，拋在海中，海就平靜了；我知道你們遭這大風是因我的緣故。”（1:12）水手“遂將約拿抬起，拋在海中，海的狂浪就平息了”（1:15）。約拿知道上帝拋出這大風是為了他的緣故。他在逃跑，但他也知道他逃避的正是“那創造滄海旱地之天上的上帝”（1:9）。約拿逃跑；上帝尋找。約拿隱藏；上帝揭示。聖經作者沒有直接交代約拿的情緒反應。反而，水手一步一步回轉歸向上帝。“水手便懼怕【即：敬畏】”（1:5）。“他們就大大懼怕【即：敬畏】”（1:10）。“那些人便大大敬畏耶和華”（1:16）。由懼怕“哀求自己的神”到大大懼怕耶和華，這是水手們信仰的逆轉，心靈的回歸。約拿作為一位 “希伯來人，敬畏耶和華”的先知，在上帝大風的底下，他的信仰又有沒有逆轉，心靈有否回歸？

上帝為了尋找約拿，祂向海拋出大風，以至水手將約拿拋出大海。約拿在大海中，上帝“安排一條大魚吞了約拿”（1:17；上帝的“安排”同樣出現在4:6, 7, 8中）和吩咐魚把約拿吐在旱地上（2:10）。這條大魚不是上帝審判的工具，而是祂的拯救。約拿逃跑；上帝尋找。正如詩人說：“他從高天伸手抓住我，把我從大水中拉上來”（詩18:16）。上帝安排這條大魚為了提供一個合適的場境，安置約拿在祂面前，以至祂能跟約拿對話。更重要的是，約拿能跟自己對話—“我心在我裡面發昏的時候”（2：7上）和跟上帝對話—“我就想念耶和華。我的禱告進入你的聖殿，達到你的面前 （2:7下）。舊約的禱告不單是上帝與人之間的對話，也是人與自我的對話。詩42:5—“我的心哪，你為何憂悶？為何在我裡面煩躁？應當仰望神，因他笑臉幫助我；我還要稱讚他 。” 聖靈內住在我們心中，能跟自己真誠對話—“我的心哪。。。”，其實是另一種跟上帝相遇的方式。箴言4:23—“你要保守你心，勝過保守一切，因為一生的果效是由心發出 。” 為了要保守它，我們要認識它。這是基督教作為心靈宗教的重要一面。自我對話是靈命培育與屬靈成長不可缺少的一環。

約拿在魚腹中的禱告是一篇感謝的禱文。約拿對拯救他的上帝發出感謝。約拿逃離上帝的命令，可以說是約拿人生方向和召命的一種迷失。在魚腹中與上帝相交，能說“諸水環繞我，幾乎淹沒我；深淵圍住我；海草纏繞我的頭 。我下到山根，地的門將我永遠關住。耶和華 ─我的神啊，你卻將我的性命從坑中救出來 ”（2:5-6）。這信心的認信，是約拿對人生方向和召命的重尋和定位。約拿在大海中得到安穩，在深淵中得到拯救，他以“感謝的聲音獻祭與”上帝，救恩出於上帝（2:9）。約拿人生方向定位後的回應：不再逃跑，重新上路，“我所許的願，我必償還”。在魚腹中的經歷是約拿生命信仰的逆轉和心靈的回歸。這是約拿書第一幕的結束。

約拿書的第二幕，上帝的信息，約拿的服從，尼尼微人的逆轉，上帝也同樣回轉，不降所 說的災禍。約拿為這事“大大不悅，且甚發怒”（4:1）。上帝對約拿輕聲說 ： “你這樣發怒合乎理嗎 ？”（4:4）約拿在第四章對上帝不滿的反應，跟他在約拿書第一幕與上帝的經歷和自己的生命得到提升，形成一個強烈的對比。約拿好像沒有多大進步。從靈命培育和屬靈成長看約拿的不穩定，其實我們每人和約拿差不多，亦能體會他的掙扎。舊約學者狄拉德和朗文說：“約拿的個性很複雜，不是呆板的。換言之，他就像普通人一樣，靈性起起伏伏。這種活潑率直的個性，正是約拿書所以變化多端，引人入勝之處。”(劉良淑譯，《21世紀舊約導論》台北：校園，1999, 頁488。) 上帝對一位個性複雜，靈性起起伏伏的人，問：“你這樣發怒對不對呢 ？”上帝認識約拿。上帝牧養約拿。上帝的問題是特別給約拿的。祂要他成長，要他明白“不輕易發怒”的上帝是如何有耐性地牧養他。

上帝再問約拿：“你因這棵蓖麻發怒合乎理嗎 ？”（4:9上）。在這兩個問題之間，上帝安排一棵蓖麻，救他脫離被日頭曝曬苦楚；約拿因這棵蓖麻大大喜樂。次日黎明，上帝卻安排一條蟲子咬這蓖麻，以致枯槁。日頭出來，上帝又安排炎熱的東風，日頭曝曬約拿的頭，使他發昏，他就為自己求死。。。（4:6-8）。由發怒，喜樂到發昏求死，上帝與約拿同在。上帝安排一棵蓖麻，安排一條蟲子咬這蓖麻，安排炎熱的東風，好像祂安排大魚吞了約拿一樣。上帝種種的安排是為了牧養靈性起起伏伏的約拿。上帝要約拿知道, “這蓖麻，不是你栽種的，也不是你培養的；一夜發生，一夜乾死，你尚且愛惜；何況這尼尼微大城，其中不能分辨左手右手的有十二萬多人，並有許多牲畜，我豈能不愛惜呢？”（4:10-11）

你尚且愛惜這蓖麻，我豈能不愛惜住在尼尼微的人？你說你發怒至於死，都合乎理，但這蓖麻不是你栽種的，也不是你培養的，你自己尚且愛惜它。你愛惜它，我有沒有不滿？我愛惜他們，“其中不能分辨左手右手的有十二萬多人，並有許多牲畜，” 你又為何不滿？你這樣發怒對不對呢 ？你要明白我愛惜住在尼尼微的人就好像你愛惜這蓖麻。我安排這蓖麻是要你明白我的心，要你明白你開頭對我的回答—“耶和華啊，我在本國的時候，豈不是這樣說嗎？我知道你是有恩典、有憐憫的神，不輕易發怒，有豐盛的慈愛，並且後悔不降所說的災。。。”（4:2）你對這蓖麻的恩典和憐憫，正是你明白我心的路標。上帝對尼尼微的審判和尼尼微人回頭離開他們的惡與否，其實只是約拿和上帝的關係的背景。約拿是上帝宣講的對象。上帝在這事件上不同的動作是要約拿回轉，更新和成長。約拿其實是以色列的縮影，代表以色列國未能作外邦人的光，施行上帝的救恩（賽49:6）。約拿書要以色列人回轉，更新和成長。這也是約拿書今天對我們的信息。

約拿書最後沒有任何結論，沒有交代約拿的回應。聖經作者刻意讓約拿沉默。作者預留一個空間給我們停下來，思考約拿的反應：若我們是約拿，將會如何回應？作者開放式的結論邀請我們用開放的生命來完成約拿的故事。

舊約學者布格曼說: 以色列人和上帝透過舊約聖經不斷彼此交流，但最終未能達到完滿的解決。間中可能出現瞬間或臨時的解決方法，但由於雙方激烈和不間斷的溝通，我們能肯定他們將會有另一番的說話，另一種挑戰，另一個邀請，另一種請願，另一個立論。這將會重提有關的問題，亦會花費時間謀求臨時解決辦法。對以色列人和以色列的上帝來說，他們之間彼此不斷的交流，不斷的溝通是沒有任何事情能給他們更大的喜悅，更認真的要求和無法逃避的負擔。此外，這過程是沒有結論，但總是向前邁進 [Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 頁83-84.].

Peterson's Subversive Spirituality 3

At the end of the coversation, Peterson said, "The true pastorate is a work of art—the art of life and spirit." What I like him the most is that he sees his pastoral role as an artist. An artist is always associated with creativity. The work of pastoring is the work of creativity, for it's associated with transforming life: from already to the not yet. We never know what the "not yet" would be like.  


Here is Part 3:

Like…?

Peterson: They go to committees all day long, spend a lot of time in community organizations, do secretarial work, visit for the sake of recruitment, whip up enthusiasm for the next project. We are in a desperate place. There is an urgency about what we are doing which cannot put up with triviality. The task we are given is very important, urgent, and we’d better do it. There really is an apocalyptic dimension to what we do. I believe the New Testament is an eschatological book shaped by a redeemed apocalypticism.

Redeemed apocalypticism? Uh…we know what you mean, but for a lot of our readers you’ll have to translate that.

Peterson: Everything in the New Testament is written under the pressure of the end. Christ is coming back. Revelation is a flowering of that, but it’s all through the New Testament. Unfortunately, the New Testament has been reinterpreted into a kind of moral Reader’s Digest advice column. It’s no wonder there is no sense of urgency. But this is an urgent time and the task of the Christian is to learn how to maintain that urgency without getting panicked, to stay on our toes without caving in to the culture. This is not just a benign culture where everything is going to be fine. Everything is not going to be fine.

How do people learn to live with the tension you’ve just described?

Peterson: The pastor has to model this for the congregation. People are dying and being killed, getting divorced. We all live in a perpetual crisis community, and the pastor is the one who is there in these moments of crisis, subversively modeling what it is like to live the gospel.

It seems odd that, as a result of your view of the urgency of the hour, you haven’t mentioned the word “evangelism.”

Peterson: I don’t use the word “evangelism” much. It’s a ruined word. I have a great concern about evangelism. The very nature of the gospel is that it is to be communicated and shared. But I don’t think the gospel is ever going to be very popular. It never has been and it never will be. If we live the Christian faith right, it will not result in full and overflowing churches. There is just no evidence for that any place in Scripture or history. If we determine successful evangelism by how many people we bring into the church, then we’ve got it screwed up from the start. What we have to do is to make sure that we are being personal and energetic about sharing our faith—but also being honest. And I think honesty is the hard part.

You’ve been at your church a long time—29 years. What do you think about the long-term pastorate?

Peterson: Long-term pastorates cause the minister to grow. You have to have. You can preach and worship and disguise what you are for a few years, but then comes the time when you have to make a d decision. Am I going to move to a new place and disguise myself again until they discover who I am, or am I going to become something more? If you decide to stay, you will be forced to become a deeper and more extensive person.

How would you describe your church?

Peterson: It’s not a large church—we reported 438 members in the last general assembly. Most of the time it has been much smaller than that—more like 250 to 300 people. But in the 29 years I’ve been here, we have probably received 2, 000 members. That’s with no evangelism program. But I want to make it clear that this isn’t the only way to have a church, and what I am doing isn’t the only way to be a pastor.

Do you have any problem with big churches of, say, 2, 000 members?

Peterson: When we started our church, we decided to plan for a church of 500 members. I thought 500 was manageable. We decided that when we got to the place where we exceeded 500, we would start another church. We are at that point now, and we tried to start another church, and the presbytery said no because it is more cost effective to have a church twice our size.

Great reason.

Peterson: Yeah. Now we’ve got cost-effective people running things. We have to go along with it because I don’t believe in flouting my authorities. But let me say something about the 2, 000 member church. There is a way to be the Church with 2, 000 members—or 5,000 members, for that matter. It requires more pastors, of course, but part of my situation is personal. It would be a mistake for me to pastor a church of that size, but I have nothing against a large congregation.

Have you enjoyed the pastorate?

Peterson: Being a pastor is an incredibly good, wonderful work. It is one of the few places in our society where you can live a creative life. You live at the intersection of grace and mercy and sin and salvation. We have front line seats and sometimes we even get to be part of the action. How could anyone abandon the glory of that kind of life to become a management expert? We are artists, not CEOs. The true pastorate is a work of art—the art of life and spirit.

The End

Grace and Gratitude

In Living the Message, today’s message is about Grace and Gratitude. “‘Charis always demands the answer eucharistia (that is, grace always demands the answer of gratitude). Grace and gratitude belong together like heaven and earth. Grace evokes gratitude like the voice an echo. Gratitude follows grace as thunder follows lighting’ [Peterson quoted from Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics]. God is personal reality to be enjoyed. We are so created and so redeemed that we are capable of enjoying him” (p. 58).

I start off my day with grace. Gratitude usually doesn’t come after it. Rather, worry, restlessness, evil thoughts come in and start to take over my mind. Instead of enjoying Him every day, I’m preoccupied by many things in life. This morning, I needed to return a book to Brooklyn Public Library, for today is the deadline. I got there at 11:45am. Then I realized that it’s open from 1:00-8:00pm on Wednesday. I walked back and forth.  It wasted me about 20 minutes. Then I came home and renewed it on-line, for I may not be able to return it today. While I was walking back home, I wasn’t too happy about this kind of living. I can’t blame on the library. The schedule is right in front of the door. I can’t blame on the city. I can blame no one, except myself: I should have visited the library more often. Then I will know the library’s regular schedule.  I should have just renewed it on-line.  I start off my day with grace. I fail to live with gratitude. Sometimes I wonder why I am so conscious of my time. I waste 10 minutes here. The train makes me wait for another 15 minutes. A stranger delays my order for another 5 minutes.  Is this how I should live by His grace?

While I am walking back and forth, can I learn to walk slowly and enjoy my walk? Can I learn to appreciate my surrounding, which is God’s creative works? Can I appreciate the fact that there is a library near my house? I don’t have to drive there. It only takes me 10 minutes to walk there. There is no gratitude. Maybe I take all of these for granted. Grace is always given. Gratitude needs to be cultivated.

Peterson's Subversive Spirituality 2

In the latest issue The Christian Century, there is an article My Father’s Butcher Shop that is excerpted from Eugene Peterson's new book The Pastor: A Memoir. Peterson mentions that his father worked at the butcher shop. He grew up there. Peterson always ties his father as a butcher to him as a pastor. His dad’s meat market is almost equivalent to his congregation.  He said,

“That butcher shop was my introduction to the world of congregation, which in a few years would be my workplace as a pastor. The people who came into our shop were not just customers. Something else defined them. It always seemed more like a congregation than a store. My father in his priestly robe greeted each person by name and knew many of their stories. And many of them knew me, in my priest’s robe, by name. I always knew there was more going on than a commercial transaction. My father had an easy smile and was always gracious, especially with the occasional disagreeable ones: Alicia Conrad, who was always fussy about the leanness of the bacon; Gus Anderson, who made my dad trim off any excess fat from a steak before weighing it. Everyone felt welcome. He gave people dignity by the tone and manner of his greetings…

“Oddly, the one person who seemed out of place in our market was a pastor we had for a couple of years. He wasn’t a regular customer, but when an evangelist or missionary would come to town, that pastor always paid us a call. He would get my father off to the side, put his arm across his shoulders and say in the same ‘spiritual’ voice that he always used when he prayed, ‘Brother Don, the Lord has laid it on my heart that this poor servant of God hasn’t been eating all that well lately and would be greatly blessed with one of your fine steaks.’ My dad, ever generous, always gave him two. I never heard my father complain, but I could see the other meatcutters wink and exchange knowing looks, and I was embarrassed for my pastor who seemed so out of place in this holy place of work” (Feb. 22, 2011, pp. 29-30).

I find this story amusing. I find it true sometimes.

Here is Part 2:

What would the model of spiritual direction look like?

Peterson: It doesn’t have a very exact definition, but classically, it is a friendship or companionship which enables another person to recognize and respond to God in their lives in detail, not in generalities. It takes a lot of leisure. You can’t do it in a hurry. It requires extensive knowledge of your people. You do this over a number of yours, not a number of days. It has no goal in the end. It is not counseling. Counseling has a goal, but there’s no goal in spiritual direction.

It sounds so…uh…non-productive.

Peterson: There is a great story in Moby Dick. They are in the whale boat and they are chasing Moby Dick. The sailors are rowing furiously and the sea is frothing, but there is one person in the boat who is not doing anything. He is just sitting there, quiet and still. It’s the harpooner, ready to throw the harpoon. Melville has this great line: “To ensure the greatest efficiency in the dart, the harpoonists of this world must start to their feet out of idleness and not out of toil.” For a long time the harpoonist appears to be “non-productive.” But that is only so that when the right moment comes he can be productive.

So spiritual direction is a slow process that looks idle and inefficient.

Peterson: It’s subversive. I’m a subversive, really. I gather the people in worship, I pray for them, I engage them often in matters of spiritual correction, and I take them on two really strong retreats a year. I am a true subversive. We live in a culture that we think is Christian. When a congregation gathers in a church, they assume they are among friends in a basically friendly world (with the exception of pornographers, etc.).

If I, as their pastor, get up and tell them the world is not friendly and they are really idol worshippers, they think I’m crazy. This culture has twisted all of our metaphors and images and structures of understanding. But I can’t say that directly. The only way that you can approach people is indirectly, obliquely. A head-on attack doesn’t work.

Jesus was the master of indirection. The parables are subversive. His hyperboles are indirect. There is a kind of outrageous quality to them that defies common sense, but later on the understanding comes. The largest poetic piece in the Bible, Revelation, is a subversive piece. Instead of (being) a three-point lecturer, the pastor is instead a storyteller and a pray-er. Prayer and story become the primary means by which you get past people’s self-defense mechanisms.

In my book, I say it this way: “I must remember that I am a subversive. My long-term effectiveness depends on my not being recognized for who I am as a pastor. If the church member actually realized that the American way of life is doomed to destruction and that another kingdom is right now being formed in secret to take its place, he wouldn’t be pleased at all. If he knew what I was really doing and the difference it was making, he would fire me.”

True subversion requires patience. You slowly get cells of people who are believing in what you are doing, participating in it.

This sounds so…well…opposite of what most people think a successful pastor should be doing.

Peterson: Pastors should not give people what they want just because it brings in customers…which it does. The biggest enemy to the Church is the development and proliferation of programs to meet people’s needs. Everyone has a hunger for God, but our tastes (needs) are screwed up. We’ve been raised on junk food, so what we ask for is often wrong or twisted. The art of spiritual leadership is not to tell people that they can’t have what they want, but to give them something of what they’ve asked for and not let it go at that. You try to shift the dimensions of their lives slowly towards what God wants.

Pretty strong words.

Peterson: I can get stronger because I am appalled by how trivially many pastors conduct their ministries. They just do Mickey Mouse stuff all day long.

Distorted Relevancy

Henri Nouwen uses the Temptation of Jesus to explain Jesus' downward mobility. In the fist temptation, Jesus was asked to turn the stones into bread (Matt. 4:3-4). "This is the temptation to be relevant, to do something that is needed and can be appreciated by people--to make productivity the basis of our ministry" [The Selfless Way of Christ: Downward Mobility and the Spiritual Life (Orbis, 2007), p. 49]. In other words, relevance means productivity, usefulness, and visible results. To be relevant is to produce; to produce is to make progress.

Jesus refused to be relevant in a worldly term. When I was in wine country for wine tasting today, I was thinking about this temptation and the feeding of the 5, 000. It was my first time to put the two incidents together in my head. I guess the wine worked pretty well. Jesus could turn stones into bread just like he turned five loaves into many loaves (5, 000 loaves?). But during the temptation, he did not do it because if he did it, it would not honor God. The miracle of turning stones into bread would be self-seeking and ego-promoting. Instead of feeding his appetite, he said, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Rather, he fed the 5, 000 out of his compassion (Matt. 14:14), not out of his ego-centric personality.

Ministry can be done in many ways but achieve a similar result, but the motives attached to it can be totally different. Often time, the church or ministry is the place where we hide our motives and exercise our egos. Out of rivalry, competition, self-centeredness, and low self-esteem, we "serve", "humble", and "love".

"Bread is given to us by God..." (p. 51). This is a simple concept, but it carries the idea of grace. Out of His compassion, bread is given unto me (and us). If I have any bread to give, it's because the bread is given to me first. When I give it, I ought to give it out of compassion because He did't give me any out of His distorted relevancy in the first place.

In the beginning of Jesus' ministry, he refused to be relevant in a wrong way. And he refused not to be irrelevant to people's needs because of his compassion towards them.

"To be a Christian who is willing to travel with Christ on his downward road requires being willing to detach oneself constantly from any need to be relevant, and to trust ever more deeply the Word of God. Thus, we do not resist the temptation to be relevant by doing irrelevant things but by clinging to the Word of God who is the source of all relevancy" (pp. 52-53).        

The Language of Suspicion

"The lament Psalms of dislocation may be understood as an instance of the hermeneutic of suspicion. The lament Psalm of dislocation becomes necessary usually quite unexpectedly. It is necessary in a situation in which the old worldview, old faith perspectives, and old language are no longer adequate" [Walter Brueggemann, "The Psalms and the Life of Faith: A Suggested Typology of Function" in Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Edited by Rolf A. Jacobson (Fortress, 2011), p. 13.].

This is exactly what Job is struggling in the text. The hermeneutic of suspicion is what he is applying to his faith. He suspects the old because the old system fails to sustain his new experience, and it no longer decodes what is going on in Job's dislocation. Job's hermeneutic of suspicion is the way to search for a new place to relocate.

Job's friends apply the hermeneutic of symbols into their faith or everyone's faith. Different attributes of God symbolize such and such. The mystery of the cross must be understood in certain ways. The wind of the Spirit ought to be blown in a certain direction. As evangelicals, we talk about assurance of salvation: what God had already done in the objective work of Christ, and we are saved by grace through faith in the subjective work of the Spirit. However, we don't have any assurance of the ways of God and His ways in us. In other words, we are sure of our destination. Nevertheless, we are not so sure of our journeys. The problem of Job's friends is that they are so sure of God's ways from here to there. When you read their talks about God, they are right and sound biblical. But they are too dogmatic about the journeys, especially the journey of Job (as well as others). They are typical fundamentalists.

Job's plea and complaint means that God is much more than what He is now. The God of the future is coming behind the God of the present just like the God of the past comes before the God of the present. "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8). The One who is to come is the One Job is hoping for and arguing towards.

Walter Brueggemann's interpretation of the Psalms captures my understanding of Job's new seeking:

"The Psalms move from petition and plea to praise...The form of Israel's speech is complaint and not lament; that is, protest and not resignation. There is expectation and even insistence that Yahweh can be moved to act and that Yahweh will act. And when Yahweh acts, Yahweh will bring things to a new life-order. The break between plea and praise in the Psalms reflects an important moment of realism" (p. 7).

Job's faith is dialectic and dynamic although he is dislocated. The faith of his friends may be in the right position before women and men. Yet, it's certainly not so right before God because it's patterned, static, and dead.  

Downward Mobility

The first time I heard the term downward mobility is from my New Testament professor at Gordon-Conwell. He learned it from Henri Nouwen when he was a student at Yale. When I recall my professor's teaching style, i realize that he reflected Nouwen's. Since I heard downward mobility, I have been using it to interpret the Scripture and ministry.

The way of God is a downward way. "The Word became flesh" is self-explanatory. Around the area we stay, I purchased a book The Selfless Way of Christ: Downward Mobility and the Spiritual Life (Orbis, 2007), written by Henri Nouwen. He said,

"When our ministry does not emerge from a personal encounter, it quickly becomes a tiring routine and a boring job. On the other hand, when our spiritual life no longer leads to an active ministry, it quickly degenerates into introspection and self-scrutiny, and thus loses its dynamism. Our life in Christ and our ministry in his name belong together as the two beams of the cross...The Word of God came down to us and lived among us as a slave. The divine way is indeed the downward way" (pp. 16, 29).     

Ministry can be driven outwardly without any personal engagement; it can be also turned into an inward activity without any concrete, communal participation. I have oscillated between the two poles from time to time.

There are many ways to encounter and engage with people. Writing, as I recently discover, is one of my ways to do so. William H. Shannon and Christine M. Bochen wrote about Thomas Merton, a monk:

"We have a variety of ways of keeping our friendships in good order. We can visit our friends, share a meal with them, attend a concert together, and still have many other possible avenues of contact open to us. Merton's one and only way of reaching his friends was, normally, through his writing. It is true that he did have his share of visitors, considerably more than most other monks. More than once he made the resolution that he would curtail the number of visitors he received. Although he chose a solitary life (and reveled in it), he loved people and craved human contact. His letters helped to fill that need and, in the process, created an extraordinary record of Merton's life and the development of his thoughts" [Thomas Merton: A Life in Letters, The Essential Collection. Edited by William H. Shannon and Christine M. Bochen (Ave Maria Press, 2008), p. viii.].

Too Dogmatic

Whenever I realize that I am in transition in life, I spontaneously turn to wisdom literature. In my mind, transition means that I have something important before me, but I cannot rush to get there. From here to there, it is easy to lose sight of what is before me. I always believe that what is significant is not so urgent. Rather, what is urgent is not so important (e.g. Answering a phone call). Because most people lack of that urgency to do the things that are significant in life, they do a lot of insignificant things in life by reacting to their surrounding. Always keep the main things the main things. Don't succumb too much time to things that contribute nothing to the main things in life. I remind of myself. 

I am reading the Book of Job at Starbucks in San Francisco. Sue is still sleeping in the hotel. And I woke up earlier to worship my iPad with my coffee. This is our fundamental difference. After a while, I need to go back and wake her up. We then go to a church around this area. I love to fulfill my marital obligations. I just love doing them.

I read Job 3-14. This is not a story. This is not a parable. This is a debate--a theological conversation. From chapters 3-27, Job exchanges conversations with his three friends. Then Elihu, a young guy, jumps in (Job 32-37; Job's monologue, chapters 28-31). Thus, all these chapters are about conversations, dialogues, debate, clarification, argument, and edification. Job's experiential and existential view is beyond what he used to believe about God. He is looking for a better paradigm to make sense out of his experiences. His three friends, however, force Job to interpret his radical experiences based on conventional belief.  His three friends' dogmatic theology denies Job's process theology. (of course, the Book of Job does not promote process theology. God's two discourses deny just that at the end of the book.) 

However, Job is definitely in the process of reforming his old faith and reconstructing a new faith through which God is not understood as a Greek god who is up there without getting involved with human affairs, and human experiences, including its radicalness, are not downplayed. Job is looking for a bridge to put theology and living together while his three friends, including Elihu, are protecting conventional theology at all costs, even forsaking one's own existential experience.

Job's life seems to be stopped, but his theological search has just begun. Job's three friends and Elihu seem to know God and the truth about God, but they may not experience God in their experiences.  

The Book of Job, as a piece of wisdom literature, has a long pause between the speakings of God (Job1-2, 38-41). Wisdom literature deals with different intensities of life: its ordinariness (Proverbs), its vanity (Ecclesiastes), and its radicalness (Job). 

The Book of Job doesn't deal with life's smoothness and ordinariness, but its ambiguity and radicalness. Readers cannot jump into any conclusion without finish listening to them. It requires listening and engagement. These conversations are made up of human interpretations, even speculation, of God. But the readers must listen to each interpretation, which is not the whole truth and yet points to the whole truth.  

God doesn't intervene their conversations. Rather, He listens. He then says in 38:2:“Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words?" After hearing their talks, this is the first question that God raises in the text. To converse with one another is our earthly activity, especially conversing about God. In the midst of our conversations, we see that Job and his friends deeply converse and engage with one another. They sound theological, but they then find out that their languages are ignorant words. But it's only through their intense engagement through which they understand what God means by "ignorant words." 

To be able to understand God's question and be convicted by it, it's a spiritual formation.       
                 

Discipleship Letters 1-2

In Discipleship Letter 1, I don’t know why I didn’t comment on the other two aspects of the Great Commission: baptizing and teaching. I guess I wanted to focus on going at the time.

From Discipleship Letter 1 to 118, I think there had been a gradual change in my writings as well as my faith articulation. I don’t think I am able to write what I wrote, for I think about things differently now. Everything happens in time and space. The date, the congregation, each discipleship letter, and the signature point back to the history in which we lived and worshipped together in time and space.

February 17, 2008

Discipleship Letter 1                                                  

To the congregation,

The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) has one imperative only—“make disciples.” The three different aspects of making disciples are going, baptizing, and teaching.

“The first of these, going, also relates to the expansive and embracing nature of God’s mission…We may go across the seas; we may go across the street. But there will always be a going—a setting forth from our own place, from our own sphere of comfort—to extend kingdom love to another. The chief model in this is Jesus himself, who left the glory of heaven to bring the good news of the kingdom to us” [Elizabeth Conde-Frazier, S. Steven Kang, and Gary A. Parrett, A Many Colored Kingdom: Multicultural Dynamics for Spiritual Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 65.].

Your pastor

--

Every church should be a Great Commission church (Matt. 28:19-20). This is a well-known passage. We usually don’t pay much attention to what is familiar. We may even think that it’s part of us because we know it so well.  We are easily deceived by familiarity. One day when we see Him, He will ask each one of us, “What did you do with my Great Commission?”

March 2, 2008

Discipleship Letter 2                                                              

To the congregation,

Are disciples born or made? If this question is understood correctly, it will affect our view of discipleship.

Are disciples born?

At the moment we confess our sins, receive Christ as our personal Savior and Lord, and believe in his death and resurrection, we are born-again Christians. We inherit all spiritual gifts and Christ-like characters from the Spirit as if they were present in embryo. These characteristics would take time to develop without human effort, for we believe that disciples are born. Generally speaking, when you look around, you see that the quality of a Christian life is not as high as we expect.

"A generous estimate would find no more than 25 percent of evangelicals meeting Christ’s standard for a disciple…At least 75 percent of evangelicals are not Christians, because they just don’t measure up to Christ’s standards of what it means to be a disciple” [Bill Hull, The Disciple-Making Pastor (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 72-73]. Disciples aren’t born.

Disciples are made!

Christian growth and maturity need to be taught and nurtured. A disciple is a follower—Christ’s follower. A disciple is always associated with following. Many believe in Christ, only a few follow him. That’s why Jesus commanded us to make disciples (Matt. 28:19-20) in order to make sure that believers are followers.

As Christ’s disciples, how do we respond to His order?

Your pastor

Peterson's Subversive Spirituality 1

This is another conversation with Peterson. It's taken from Eugene Peterson, Subversive Spirituality. Edited by Jim Lyster, John Sharon, and Peter Santucci (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Vancouver: Regent, 1997), pp. 236-244.

Peterson mentions that he didn't attend committee meetings in his pastorate. I think it worked for him, but it doesn't work for most pastors, including myself. I believe that pastors need to attend or lead committee meetings. But we have to be selective, for we are not omnipresent. The matter is not that we go to committee meetings or not. Rather, it's about whether or not we pastors consciously know the intrinsic nature of different meetings

In my pastorate, I tend to take committee meetings secondary. They are important, but I don't priorize my ministry around them. Rather, I pay more attention to teaching, preaching, and disciplehsip. I don't consider committee meetings as fellowship even though we do have fellowship with one another in the meetings. But having fellowship with one another is not the primary focus. In committee meetings, what we need to do is to discuss related matters with efficiency and come up with relevant solutions. In meetings, I try to be effective and less personal. In fellowship, I try to be relational and more personal. I have no intention to dichotomize fellowship and committee meetings. But I think one of the reasons why we are so not efficient is because we mix up the two. Every gathering has its nature. We must know and respect it.

No matter what, I like Peterson's ideal concept not to attend committee meetings. The reason behind it is that, as a pastor, he likes to devote more time to pray, to study the Bible, and, most importantly, to spend more quality time with his congregants. I admire that. I try to follow that. Spending time with different individuals can be more tiring than attending committee meetings. But the end result is immeasurable, for it's about knowing, building, shaping, sharing, and forming the life of His people in a way that both pastors and congregants will always cherish on earth and in eternity.

Here is Part 1:

How does busyness affect our spiritual lives?

Peterson: Busyness is the enemy of spirituality. It is essentially laziness. It is doing the easy thing instead of the hard thing. It is filling our time with our own actions instead of paying attention to God’s actions. It is taking charge.

There is an old Russian proverb that says “Pray to God and keep rowing to shore.” It implies that life is both busyness and spirituality. Life doesn’t have to be an either/or situation, does it?

Peterson: It is an either/or situation. Busyness has nothing to do with activity, and spirituality is not the absence of activity. You either enter into what God is doing or you don’t. A busy person is a lazy person because they are not doing what they are supposed to do.

What does that mean?

Peterson: It means that the elder in your church who goes to all the meetings, runs all the committees, and, as a result, doesn’t take care of his kids or his wife, is not doing what he is supposed to be doing. Everyone, including the pastor, thinks this elder is wonderful, but his wife and children don’t think it’s so wonderful.

It seems like most pastors we know are just like you have described. Busy, busy, doing the work of the church.

Peterson:  Most pastors want to run a good church and they will do just about anything to make that happen. We pastors have a good nose for the market. We sense when people are getting a little bored and we jazz things up a bit, challenge them with a new project, and we use Sunday morning “worship” as the stage to do that. I’m convinced that most pastors don’t give two cents about worship. They really don’t. And there’s a good reason for it. True worship doesn’t make anything happen. It is a losing of control, a weaning from manipulative language and entertainment. It’s tough to practice that reality because, given the choice between worship and dancing around the golden calf, pastors know people are going to dance. Pastors sense that if they really practice worship they are going to empty out the sanctuary pretty fast.

We agree that pastors should not be in the entertainment business, so what should they be doing?

Peterson: The pastor’s primary work is leading people in worship on Sunday morning, proclaiming the word of God, being knowledgeable in theology and scripture, and being committed to pastoral care which does not have the therapeutic model for its structure. The pastor is the one who is available one-on-one through the week to personalize, to customize, and to deal with the uniqueness of everyone’s situation. Pastors pray a lot. Prayer is hard work, but prayer should be the distinctive about us. We should have a deliberate or a conscious, intelligent, personal relationship with God which is articulated in prayer.

It’s a lot easier to be busy instead.

Peterson: I hate this professionalization of the church’s ministry where the pastor hogs the show all the time. The laity should be committed to doing the real ministry of the church and the pastor should be committed to the spiritual direction of the laity.

We’re shocked because we didn’t hear you mention a word about the pastor going to committee meetings.

Peterson: I don’t go to them.

That’s heretical.

Peterson: I had a friend—he’s dead now—and committee meetings were his forte. He was a pastor at committee meetings and it was his best structure for working. So I don’t want to be dogmatic about this, but if a pastor complains about the committee meetings, then he ought to quit going to them. I haven’t been to a single committee meeting in 25 years.

This is amazing. We hear a lot of ministers complain about all the committee meetings they have to attend.

Peterson: The reason they are going to all those committee meetings is that they don’t trust their laity.

They don’t trust their laity?

Peterson: No. It’s an ego problem, really. We have a thousand euphemisms for our ego—spiritual concern, theological wisdom, equipping the laity. All of those phrases can be a euphemism for not trusting the laity.

Don’t the people in your congregation get a little irritated that you never attend a committee meeting?

Peterson: They love it. They understand that they are in charge. It gives them dignity. Now, understand, I didn’t do this cold turkey. People don’t know what a pastor does. They know what their doctor does, they know what their lawyer does, so I help them understand what their pastor does. The reason I don’t go to committee meetings isn’t because I’m too good for them; I don’t go because I believe in them. Their ministers have just as much validity as mine. I don’t think the pastor is the most important person in the church, but the task we are given is very important and we had better do it.

You mentioned earlier that your model for ministry is spiritual direction. Wouldn’t most pastors describe their model for ministry as administration or management?

Peterson: Unfortunately, that is the predominant model for the American pastor.