FOLLOWING JESUS: TWO MISTAKES WE OFTEN MAKE
By Steve Behlke
May 31, 2008
In seeking to trust and follow Jesus, which Christians by new-nature want to do, from recent discussions I find that believers in Jesus often fall into one of two errors.
(1) First, Christians can "minimize," undervalue and even undermine Jesus, what He said and did and how He wants those of us who trust Him to also imitate Him.
Jesus was a revolutionary; so much more, but nothing less. He was extreme, radical for His time and ours if we see Him as the Gospels present Him. Yet we minimize even this, dismissing the idea that Jesus was a revolutionary or all that radical.
We minimize Jesus' incredibly high view of Scripture and how it shaped His entire life; His obedient love of the Father; and His total dependence on and empowerment by the Holy Spirit.
We minimize the radical nature of Jesus' teachings on the Kingdom of God, the Sermon on the Mount, true worship, forgiveness, marriage, divorce, and remarriage (our views of divorce and remarriage are soooo shaped by our American culture and not on the teachings of Christ).
We minimize the importance of Jesus' attitudes toward money, governnment, women, enemies, culture, and the poor.
We somehow miss His radical acceptance of sinners - sexual sinners, greedy sinners, drunken sinners, and all of the other "sinners" who were drawn to Jesus yet whom the "good and decent people" of His day rejected.
We ignore Jesus' disdain for the self-righteous religious leaders who judged everything but their own wicked hearts. We may judge the Pharisees of Christ's day yet refuse to judge the Pharisee in us.
We ignore the many of Jesus' black-and-white statements on true discipleship, self denial, picking up our cross, and following Him.
(2) A second mistake is to "exaggerate" some of the things the Gospels show us about Jesus and how we might follow Him. We take something Jesus said and so exaggerate it that what we do doesn't even resemble the Jesus that we claim to follow.
Take, for example, the whole prosperity gospel that keeps popping up with a new spokesperson each decade. If we believed everything Jesus taught and truly appreciated how and why He lived the way He did, we would by no means associate any so-called prosperity gospel with Jesus Christ of Nazareth! Jesus talked about seeking first the
Read the gospels and ask yourself, "Does Jesus really think that what is missing in my life is a new Porsche?" "Is it true that the one thing that our church needs to carry out the Great Commission is a $10 million building expansion?"
Another thing that readily comes to mind is many a church's prohibition against drinking alcohol. I'm not talking about drunkeness but the prohibition against moderate, social drinking too. Many evangelical churches do not allow alcohol on the premises even for a communion service. Thus, Jesus' first miracle would have gotten Him tossed out of most of these churches. Think of that: In Jesus' name, Christians actually enforce a human commandmant (thou shalt not drink wine) and in so doing condemn even Jesus Christ Himself. Yikes!
What about speaking in tongues. Some Christians take a few cool passages on speaking in tongues and turn it into something way bigger than Jesus ever made it. Come to think of it, Jesus never even spoke in tongues and He never told us we need to speak in tongues, particularly not as evidence that we are truly "saved." Jesus never even mentioned speaking in tongues and He never once elevated speaking in tongues as a way to pray better or to become a better disciple or as a way to know the Holy Spirit better or to worship God better. If we really want to follow Jesus, think about these things.
Realize too, this isn't about speaking in tongues or not, or drinking an IPA with a couple of friends, or getting rich or becoming poor. It's about knowing Jesus. It's about discipleship to Jesus Christ.
How can you add to this list?
Are you more prone to minimize or to exaggerate some of the things Jesus said and did?
What are other ways that Christians miss out on Jesus or totally make a mountain out of a molehill?
Perhaps elderly Christians do not perceive Jesus Christ as a revolutionary because the title itself conjures up negative cultural portrayals of Elvis Pressley, Joe Namath, war protestors, and Andy Warhol. Younger Christians would agree with your claim that Jesus was a revolutionary then fail of themselves to seehow he offers to revolutionize they're own lives and not just archaic church forms that are handed down to them by a previous generation.
Reply to this
Christ's message is timeless and has been preached for 2000 years, and Christians were martyred for their faith. We have it easy.
The problem is "Jesus", the bible and Christianity became Americanized. We all know how proud we can be as Americans, like the Kingdom of God didn't exist before "One nation under God". I'm not trying to bash my birth nation, but I was re-born into a much better Kingdom and all nations are enemies of the Kingdom.
Back to Jesus being Americanized...He became an philosophical idea, and each person could shape Jesus into who ever they wanted Him to be, like how people imagine "the perfect day". I like rainy days cozied up with a good book, where someone else may love sunny beach weather. "The perfect day" is an idea.
However, when you look at Jesus (not an idea), the God-man, who breathed and walked, incarnate...He's a genuine person with attributes and a real life. His life is radical and He offers a radical Life, not of this world.
Pick up my cross, deny myself, turn the other cheek, forgive my enemy...even the one who did THAT? Take the plank out my own eye? "Go and sin no more?" Not my will, but God's? Love God with ALL my heart? AND my neighbor as myself? Easier said than done, thank God for his Grace and Forgiveness.
It's radical, it's deep, it's a relational. You stumble, and crawl to Jesus, He helps you up, you stumble again, you pray to want to just want to crawl...and His hand is there to pick you up again. It's live changing. That's living in the Kingdom.
Forgive me for my own hypocritical lack of humility.
Reply to this
Hey Lane,
How elderly are we speaking of?
I totally agree with you about "archaic church forms that are handed down...by a previous generation." But I don't think it is all bad. The traditions are wonderful if they are treated as traditions and not the sole focus of worship. It is easy even in a short time to forget it is Jesus we are worshiping. I can easily forget that between breakfast and lunch. Despite the church forms being passed down we see that Jesus has been passed down with them. If that weren't the case then young people wouldn't even know the name Jesus.
Reply to this
I always wondered how Jesus would be received in todays culture if he were to appear for the first time- you know, would we recognize Him as the Christ or deny him still?
In recent ways I think politically, we all have missed the boat, left and right sides. Democracies and Socialist systems.
I am not for a system of rooted in Aethism,or Communisim in a way that oppresses it's people. However how our country in more recent times have branded our patriotism with God with such fervor that I think we over ride Jesus' pacificm.
I came across this song and the version inparticular is moving by Aborigonal Kev Carmody.
The song called "Comrade Jesus Christ" stirs up a bit of resistance to the thought of the word "Comrade" but remember the true meaning of the word is "friend". Check it out- it helps if you actually hear the song too (and more melodic) Since my characters are limited go to the link for the lyrics.
http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/herd_the_lyrics_40124/other_lyrics_71793/comrade_jesus_christ_lyrics_741745.html
It speaks of how revolutionary Christ was, in all senses of the word and how in todays cultures even politically how He still is. I think the only thing for me is that it leaves out how revolutionary His sacrifice and His gift of grace is for us.
Lisa
PS: Jesus can turn my water into wine anyday....bring it on!
Reply to this
We minimize GRACE Pastor Steve! I am amazed that YOU didn't mention this!!!
Reply to this
Uh, yeah, well . . . Jesus didn't pray in tongues or teach on it because although Isaiah hinted at the phenomenon, the Lord didn't bring it into being until Pentecost, after Jesus was taken up. I know you know this.
Perhaps there's a more cogent way to point out the excesses of the teachings on tongues than "Jesus never even did it"?
Paul's clear that it's the least of the gifts. There's no unawkward way around the fact that the Jewish followers of Jesus were looking at tongues as further proof that God wanted and welcomed Gentiles into the fold. In Acts they were amazed when the report was brought back that Gentiles were spontaneously praying this way after receiving faith in Jesus through the presentation of the good news. This fact is no excuse for creating false teachings that declare 1) tongues evidence of salvation; 2) people no longer sin after beginning to pray in tongues; or 3) ignoring the instruction for the function of tongues and for orderly worship in 1 Cor 14, etc.
I think we can find a way to point to obedience and sound doctrine without minimizing the importance and function of the gift of tongues, and without seeming to trivialize the gift because Jesus didn't use, need, or speak about it.
I'm sure you'd all agree that the situation calls for correction, not dismissal.
Reply to this
Parishioner, right, totally agreed. Tongues are a biblical expression and Paul spoke brilliantly on the subject.
Whether or not we speak in tongues is not the issue, nor do I really care if you drink (in moderation) or not.
The real issue is following Jesus in a manner that is consistent with Jesus' teachings and example and lifestyle, not going to excess by overexaggerating some things and not going the opposite way by minimizing others.
It is simply interesting to me that many Christians put such an emphasis on speaking in tongues as being vital to everyone's discipleship, when Jesus Himself never once mentioned or taught it or practiced it. Likewise, it is equally interesting how many believers will say, "Good Christians cannot drink wine," when Jesus himself created, drank, and even held up the cup of wine during the Last Supper and said, "Do this in remembrance of Me."
Reply to this
Maybe we should admit that we all forgot about Mark 16:17-18, in which Jesus talks about tongues. Sometimes we focus so much on what he said before the crucifixion, we forget about what he said after his resurrection. Oops.
Reply to this
It doesn't seem to me that Jesus is talking about "speaking in tongues" I understand this as Jesus meaning other languages so the entire world can hear his word.
Reply to this
The Jewish people of Jesus' time were multi-lingual, just as many modern Europeans are. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, and probably many of the disciples did too, although they were mostly considered uneducated. And how much Latin did they understand of the Romans in their midst did they understand? We can't really be sure. As Americans who mostly speak one language, we can forget that we're a minority in the world.
It would have been strange for Jesus to be referring to the learning and speaking of other languages here, both in the context of the what "tongues" means in the rest of the NT, and because his hearers could speak more than one language. It would have been kind of like stating the obvious: "They'll bathe, eat regularly, and learn other languages."
It makes most sense that He's talking about praying in a language they do not speak, as on Pentecost.
Reply to this
Parishioner,
Please see my comment below pertaining to the authenticity of the end of Mark 16.
In addition to this consideration, I want to mention something else. Jesus, according to this passage, says that these *signs* will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons; speak in new tongues; handle serpents; drink deadly poisons without ill effect; and heal the sick. Learning a new language is great, but it hardly constitutes a "sign." However, *speaking* in a language one hasn't studied or learned would be sign -- maybe even more of a sign than a cryptic prayer language. Therefore, we cannot determine from this passage what is meant by 'tongues.' To assume that 'tongues' means an unknown prayer language is begging the question. (Begging the question is when someone assumes the very thing in question.)
As I mentioned in my other post, there are very, very good reasons to think that 16:9-20 was not part of Mark's Gospel. However, even if it should be part of Mark, I don't think it's definitive.
Do you think Christian churches should practice serpent handling or poison drinking? Or, to say it another way, do you think all the things attributed to Jesus in this passage should follow those who believe as signs?
Gabe
Reply to this
Hey Gabe,
I did read your comment thoroughly, and I'm sorry you had the impression I had not.
Firstly, I'll address your 2 questions at the end of your reply. We have to keep in mind that the snake handling and poison drinking mentioned here are not referring to the stuff of carnival side-shows. It refers to believers miraculously being unharmed by those activities. Think of Paul on the island of Melita being bitten by the viper. As for poison, I've never known anyone personally who was, but I've read many testimonies of people around the world being poisoned by their families after they put their faith in Jesus. I think of one man in particular, who was one of the first believers in Timbuktu, Mali. His family fed him poisoned food at a feast, and two of his family members who accidently ate it died. He never even became ill.
Do all believers survive snakes and poison? No. But some do, and the people who witness it always know they've seen something supernatural. So no, I don't think all the "signs" in this passage should always follow those who believe.
Concerning the matter of tongues, I sent another message right after the one you responded to, attempting to make things clearer. It never made it, so I'll try again, hoping this version is more succinct.
There are two things to think about in this passage concerning tongues. One is, as you mentioned, "signs." These are miraculous events, nothing so commonplace such as learning a new language. However, speaking/praying in a language one does not speak certainly constitutes a miraculous sign. I only mentioned the fact that most Americans don't speak more than one language while most people on earth speak a few because this could affect our perception of the passage. If you're an American, you might think being fluent in another language is pretty miraculous, indeed. It's not, it's just our perception. Sorry for not being clearer in my message.
The other thing to think about is the Greek. "Glossa" and "heteroglossa" are the words translated as "tongue/s" in Mark and 1 Cor 14. Strong's says glossa refers to a language acquired unnaturally, and it is the word used in Mark and most of 1 Cor 14. Strong's says heteroglossa refers to a foreign language, and it only appears once when Paul is translating the quote of Isaiah 28 from the Hebrew. So, we should conclude from the Greek and from context that "tongues" in this passage refers to the same phenomenon/gift of the Spirit/sign as what began happening with the disciples on Pentecost.
This is important even if we believe the passage to be apocryphal.
Reply to this
Parishioner,
Thank you for this response. You bring up some interesting points. I will refrain from responding to it since we may have gone off the original topic of the entry.
Gabe
Reply to this
It is interesting, isn't it? I suspect there are radically different reasons for the two, though.
The drinking thing seems to stem out of the fear of appearances or the fear of loss of self-control, depending on one's culture.
The "emphasis on speaking in tongues as being vital to everyone's discipleship" and Jesus not mentioning or practicing it are two separate issues.
We never really talk about Jesus having such and such "gift" of the Spirit, because he IS the Spirit. Jesus being God, he's one with the Spirit as he's one with the Father. When the Father wants to share his ministry with us, he uses words like "giving" and "gifts," whereas the aspects those gifts represent are intrinsic to His nature. When Jesus went off to pray, there was perfect communion between the trinity as they communicated. There would have been no need for any kind of praying in tongues, the least reason being that no tongue is unknown to God, as he speaks all languages.
Jesus told the disciples during the last seder, "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
Along with seeing Jesus equate himself with the Spirit in that passage, we see a promise. One whose promised presence was often accompanied by the sudden ability to pray in an unknown language. "They were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 'Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.'"
I think that people who pray in tongues tend to emphasize it because of the change in their lives that accompanies it. Their thinking is, everyone can do with an event of the Spirit which makes them much more aware of the person, presence, and power of Jesus. They and those around them can testify to the profound change in their lives afterward.
But the way they share with others about it is everything. Do they do so with gentleness and respect, the way one should share the gospel, or do they do so with condemnation or domination? Do they create false teachings around it? And do they conduct themselves in line with the instruction in 1 Cor 14 when manifesting the gift, or do they offend through their rebellious behavior?
Here's to obedience out of deep love . . .
Reply to this
Parishioner,
Mark 16:9-20 -- sometimes called the "Longer Ending" -- is tenuous because it is almost certainly apocryphal. That is, there are very good reasons to believe that Mark didn't write this ending. In short, vv. 9-20 don't appear in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of Mark, and another ending (the "Shorter Ending") appears in an ancient Latin version and subsequent Greek versions. Moreover, there are linguistic and theological reasons to believe vv. 9-20 was a later addition.
Without spending time on the arguments on both sides, suffice it to say that the majority of scholars (including the majority of conservative scholars!) don't count Mark 16:9-20 as authentic. Therefore, we should tread very slowly when considering whether this passage provides grounds for drawing theological conclusions.
I hope this doesn't confuse matters.
Best,
Gabe
Reply to this
I used the pronoun "we" because we ALL forgot about the passage, apocryphal or not. I certainly wouldn't have used the word "never" in my reply if I had remembered it, and Steve wouldn't have used it, either. As you point out, there's too much uncertainty over this passage for us to be using emphatic words like "never" and "always" when we comment on matters it contains.
It's good to study together, and remind each other of things. Thanks.
Reply to this
Pastor Steve's comment was: "...Jesus Himself never once mentioned or taught it or practiced it."
I'm not sure what his view of Mark 16 is, but my comment was intended to point out that Jesus may not have said the things recorded in Mark 16:9-20. Let me illustrate my point another way.
Let's say we're talking about the Trinity, and I say, "You know, we all forgot about the passage in the Gospel of Thomas where Jesus says that there are 'three deities.'" I think that someone might say in response, "I didn't *forget* this passage. This probably isn't something that Jesus said."
It just so happens that verses 9-20 crept into Mark, but the passage I mentioned from Thomas didn't. I should be clear, Jesus *may* have spoken of tongues, but I think someone is well within their rights to assert that he didn't based on the tenuous nature of the passage in Mark. Again, I'm not sure if Steve *forgot* this passage (if he counts it as an authentic quote) or if he simply counts it as an apocryphal passage. I, personally, am inclined to say that I'm not sure if Jesus ever spoke of tongues because the only evidence we have that he did was not part of Mark's account.
Gabe
Reply to this
The original assertion wasn't about tongues at all. I tried to say that. The concern was our discipleship to Jesus Christ. Listening to and learning from Jesus. I suggested that we do not undervalue the things Jesus himself modeled and taught nor that we over-emphasize things that Jesus Himself did not emphasize. I almost wonder if we're doing that in this thread...
Reply to this
Thank you for the clarification; I guess I misunderstood -- and I think Parishioner did too. Good admonition though, Pastor Steve. Two thoughts:
(1) THE THEME OF THIS THREAD: If the words in Mark are authentic then we have, from the lips of Jesus, a list of the signs that will follow those who believe. If this is coupled with a particular reading of Acts and 1st Corinthians...and maybe certain experiences, then tongues becomes an integral part of discipleship. With this in mind, I was trying to point out that we must be cautious when citing Mark 16:9-20 as a "proof-text" that Jesus spoke about tongues. In other words, I think we have to make a case for what Jesus emphasized or didn't emphasize; we can't just assert it.
(2) EMPHASIZE THE THINGS JESUS EMPHASIZED?: Jesus had a particular mission, and he found himself in a particular socioreligious milieu. Jesus emphasized certain things, which we also should emphasize, but I think God has given us different things to emphasize. Let me illustrate. Can you imagine someone rebuking Martin Luther King Jr. for "over-emphasizing" the injustice of the racial inequality? The rebuke might go something like this: "Dr. King, I suggest that we do not undervalue the things Jesus himself modeled and taught nor that we over-emphasize things that Jesus Himself did not emphasize. [These words should sound familiar.] Jesus didn't emphasize civil rights, so maybe you should take up another cause." I think my point is clear: We find ourselves in different contexts from Jesus with different missions than the one the Father gave Jesus. As a result, we can't *simply* copy what Jesus did or only emphasize what he emphasized. Much more could be said...
Gabe
Reply to this
You did say it, and I did understand. The thread took a turn when I pointed out Mark 16. You thanked me for it, and told me that you'd forgotten about it when you said "Jesus never mentioned tongues." It might have ended there if you had replied on the blog. But because you "outed" yourself only to me, Gabe's replies attempted to guess your possible position and take me to task, and I was left feeling more than a bit awkward.
Your suggestion that we not over-emphasize things which Jesus himself did not emphasize is debatable for some when it comes to tongues, and not just because of the passage in Mark 16. I've been to many charismatic healing conferences, and thank God most of them have been balanced. No one there asserted that those who did not pray in tongues had no relationship concerning the Holy Spirit. But like Paul, they encourage people to eagerly desire the greater gifts of the Spirit. And if we're to eagerly desire the greater gifts, should there not be at least a modicum of desire for the least of the gifts? Is our knee-jerk reaction to say we're not interested because none of them are necessary for salvation?
We should spend some time thinking about Jesus' indisputable emphasis on the coming of the Spirit after he had been glorified. Jesus kept emphasizing the coming of the Holy Spirit, and not all that His coming meant. Much of that was entrusted to Paul and the disciples. They got to see most of what the coming of the Holy Spirit meant only after the Ascension.
A similar situation is that of the Gentiles being welcomed into the body of believers. We could successfully argue Jesus didn't emphasize salvation for non-Jews. Jesus had told them he had sheep not of their pen, and the prophets foretold all nations being blessed because of the Jews. Yet it took some supernatural confirmation for the Jewish community to believe that the Messiah and salvation was, incredibly, even for Gentiles! They embraced the Gentiles, even though Jesus hadn't emphasized their salvation.
I've attempted to flesh out why certain believers tend to emphasize tongues for discipleship, because that was the point of Steve's essay. It has nothing to do with tongues per se, but for them it's usually about what Jesus did emphasize in the coming of the Spirit. And in case you're wondering: No, I also do not believe that only those who pray in tongues "have" the Holy Spirit in their lives.
I just think we can come to a greater understanding of the emphasis of those who do, in light of what Jesus did emphasize. I'm playing the "Brother's Advocate" because I love them.
Reply to this