The Sun Shines Even at Midnight

Mike Leake

photo-1438179152657-8ce7dfda4f0bAs I look out the window in my office I see that little creek that forms on our parking lot during rain storms and impedes my ability to get to my vehicle without wet shoes. The sky is an indiscriminate gray that advertises a great day for a nap. The sun is shining just as bright as it was yesterday.

I forgot something in my car last night. It was cold and dark outside. For some reason when you open the door to the Trailblazer the interior lights won’t turn on unless the vehicle is started. I couldn’t readily find the keys, but had the flashlight on my cell phone handy. It was dark. I didn’t have enough light to get what I had dropped on the floorboard. The sun was shining just as bright as it had been at noon.

The sun shines just as bright at midnight as it does at noon. The problem is that either clouds or the position of our earth is blocking it’s light. It doesn’t stop shining. Our experience of it’s rays change. It doesn’t. (Okay science nerds—I know it does change some, but bear with me).

“This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” –1 John 1:5

John sums up Jesus’ message about the Father by saying that “He is light”. Of course, this isn’t all there is to be said about the Father. Nor is this even him saying “He is light” is the pre-eminent attribute. But this is set against the backdrop of the Gnostic heretics. They viewed God as being shadowy, secret, hiding himself to all except for the elite.

To this John says that God is light. There is no darkness in him. No not none at all. (I know that’s not quality grammar, but that’s how John says it for emphasis). Not one speck of darkness. He is always shining.

When the Bible speaks of “light” it’s typically a reference to either moral purity or knowledge/revelation. Here it’s probably both because John will later speak of “walking in the light” in the context of living in purity, but it’s also in the context of Gnosticism. God is both morally pure—not even a speck of sin—and absolutely no hiding in the shadows.

I appreciate how John Stott explains this:

It is his nature to reveal himself, as it is the property of light to shine; and the revelation is of perfect purity and unutterable majesty…

The miserable errors of the heretics were due to their ignorance of God’s ethical self-revelation as light. They could never have laid claim to a private, esoteric gnōsis into which they had been initiated if their conception of God had been of one who is light, diffusive, shining forth and manifesting himself, in whom there is no darkness at all, no secrecy, no hiding in the shadows. (Stott, 75)

God delights to reveal himself. That’s part of what it means that He is light. This is incredibly good news for those of us who were raised on a theology which seemed to teach that God was always hiding behind bushes and in signs and cryptic messages. He isn’t hiding from you. He isn’t punishing you until you figure out his tough lessons. He is always shining.

The issue is that we don’t see so well, just as on a cloudy day when we cannot see the bright sun because of the clouds. This is why the Psalmist prays, “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law.” Or that God says, “let there be light” so that we can see the “knowledge of the glory of Christ”.

When we think about God teaching us those painful lessons of providence, it’s not meant to chastise us for our ignorance (see James 1). Suffering has a way of giving us His eyes. Scales are removed in the furnace of suffering. Our prayer really shouldn’t be, “show me, Lord” as much as it is, “open my eyes”.

God is light.

No darkness.

God isn’t playing hide and seek with you. He’s not a God of secret knowledge. He is a sun always shining. We are dependent upon His revelation and He happily gives it. May our eyes be opened to seeing Him.

The sun shines even at midnight. God is shining even when we cannot see. In moments of darkness we do well to trust what we saw in the light.

—

Photo source: here

What It Means For a Jesus-Follower to “Be This Guy”

Mike Leake

1a0wfbI’ve seen this meme pop up a few times. It’s usually in the context of not following the progressive liberal narratives of our day. For the follower of Jesus there is certainly something to be said for this. When many around us are bowing to the golden statues of the Nebuchadnezzar’s of our day, we need to be modern-day Daniel’s.

But I’d like us to think a little more about that guy in this meme. All those extending their arm, “Heil, Hitler” are falling in step with Nazi ideology. An ideology that saw Germany as the superior nation and sought to exterminate any who were not part of the Aryan master race. It was a survival of the fittest. It was German nationalism at full throttle, breaking the bones of any who were vulnerable.

It’s true that power was transferred to the Fuhrer, and their extended arms is an act of subjugation, it’s not quite so simple as to say that they are actively giving up their freedoms and laying them at the foot of the emperor. This man, with arms folded, refusing to “Heil, Hitler” is not merely a lone lemming, standing upon his own character and principles, refusing to follow the crowd. It’s more than this, or at least it should be.

I suppose it’s possible that someone captured this photograph when our hero was day-dreaming and was only moments away from extending his arms. He may not have been heroic at all. But there is One who was heroic, who exemplifies what this picture is going after, and His story is certain.

Jesus stood against the religious system of his day. Yes, he didn’t bow a knee to Pilate or Herod or any of the secular rulers, but his sphere of resistance was predominately found within religious circles. He stood against the Pharisaical temple-system. A system which feasted upon the vulnerable rather than fighting for them. They were those who “devoured widows’ houses” (Luke 20:47). Jesus sharply stood against them in Matthew 23. He was a dissident. Diane Langberg explains:

A dissident is one who disagrees…We defined a system as a people standing together. Jesus sat apart from those who stood together in his day. It is quite a picture isn’t it? In the same manner and spirit of Jesus, all Christians should be dissidents in the corrupt systems of the world, including in our own beloved institutions. (85)

Stand with Jesus, against them all, to the glory of God for the sake of the vulnerable. That’s what I hope we see whenever we see this meme. That’s what it means to “be this guy”. It’s not about fighting for my own perceived rights, it’s not about fighting against one political party whilst bedding another. Christians must stand against every corrupt system and never be co-opted to party. Ever.

Be that guy.

Stand with Jesus.

Stand with Jesus against corruption.

Stand with Jesus against corruption to the glory of God.

Stand with Jesus against corruption to the glory of God for the sake of the vulnerable.

Be that guy.

An Autopsy of The YRR Movement

Mike Leake

photo-1481970285016-33d3d5d85491I don’t know much about gardening. So, when I’m reading through Bonhoeffer’s Life Together and I see the phrase “hothouse flower” my mind goes to an early 90’s Irish rock band. A hothouse flower is actually a flower which isn’t able to grow under normal conditions. If it’s outside then it’s going to die. It can only grow when it’s pampered inside of a greenhouse.

When I read that definition I start thinking about so much of the “deconstruction” that is taking place in evangelical circles. That’s how it’s phrased. I think it’s probably better to call it fundamentalist circles, but that’s for another day. And I’m particularly seeing this happening within many who, like me, were heavily influenced in the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement. (And I’ve had my own share of feeling fragmented).

Many of my peers are abandoning the faith altogether. Some are moving away from unhealthy baggage that was more cultural than biblical. Others seem to be digging their heels in further and becoming something else entirely. But the YRR movement, it seems to me, is definitely over. I think Kevin DeYoung’s recent Why Reformed Evangelicalism Splintered admits this much. 

Bonhoeffer, I believe, gives a prescient autopsy of the YRR movement. In this section he is outlining the difference between spiritual love and human love.

Therefore, spiritual love proves itself in that everything it says and does commends Christ. It will not seek to move others by all too personal, direct influence, by impure interference in the life of another. (26)

Bonhoeffer is saying here that the only access we really have to another person is through Christ. When we try to influence based upon the strength of our own personality we are moving away from spiritual love. Think of Driscoll’s bus. (“There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done”)

Perhaps it’s unwise of me to give one of the worst examples within the YRR to prove my point. We know how the Driscoll/Mars Hill story ended. But ask whether or not there isn’t often in our churches a similar environment. Bonhoeffer charts another path:

It will not take pleasure in pious, human fervor and excitement. It will rather meet the other person with the clear Word of God and be ready to leave him alone with this Word for a long time, willing to release him again in order that Christ may deal with him. (26)

This very point is where I credit the Lord with using John Newton to rescue my own soul. Early on in this movement I stumbled upon his “On Controversy” and dove deeply into his interactions with John Ryland, Jr. Newton was passionate about preaching the truth to people but ultimately leaving them in the hands of the Lord. He believed that the Spirit knew better how to cultivate and grow a believer.

But consider all of the discernment blogs which came out of the YRR movement. I would argue that part of the issue with fundamentalism is an inability to leave the growth of another believer in the hands of the Lord. And I believe this type of fundamentalism attached itself to the YRR brand. If you wanted to be part of the speaking circuit, have your books promoted, your articles linked, etc. then you had to toe the line.

Our “somebody is wrong on the internet” impulse is what Bonhoeffer is talking about here. Because of our misunderstanding about the nature of community (that Christ always stands between me and others) we could not bear the thought of giving independence for other believers to even be wrong for a moment.

I believe the YRR movement failed to do this:

Because Christ stands between me and others, I dare not desire direct fellowship with them. As only Christ can speak to me in such a way that I may be saved, so others, too, can be saved only by Christ himself. This means that I must release the other person from every attempt of mine to regulate, coerce, and dominate him with my love. The other person needs to retain his independence of me; to be loved for what he is, as one for whom Christ became man, died, and rose again, for whom Christ bought forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Because Christ has long since acted decisively for my brother, before I could begin to act, I must leave him his freedom to be Christ’s; I must meet him only as the person that he already is in Christ’s eyes. (26)

All of the unhealthy cases of church discipline gone wild, spiritual abuse, cult of personality, etc. can be traced back to a failure on this very principle. And it, I believe, has lead to our fracture as a movement. The YRR is no more because it viewed itself not as a part of “the one, holy, catholic, Christian church” (27) but as the school of piety. And in doing this it could not allow others to “be Christ’s”.

Leave him freedom to be Christ’s. The degree that any movement, denomination, or individual believer fails to do this is the degree to which fellowship will be lost and fracturing will result. It is what Bonhoeffer termed human love and it is always doomed to fail.

Human love produces human subjection, dependence, constraint; spiritual love creates freedom of the brethren under the Word. Human love breeds hothouse flowers; spiritual love creates fruits that grow healthily in accord with God’s good will in the rain and storm and sunshine of God’s outdoors. (27)

Hothouse flowers. That’s what we grow in our discipleship when we try to exert far too much control. When we build fences around our disciples. When we filter through all of the resources they read. When we try to be the center of control in their relationship with Jesus we do more harm than good.

Certainly, a new believer needs help and discipleship. He needs rails around his newfound faith. She needs to grow into maturity. But never are we to “desire direct fellowship” with them. They belong to Jesus. Always. Definitively. We need to be humble enough to acknowledge that new disciples need to be protected from their well meaning shepherd maybe as much as they need to be warned of the wolves.

Give them Jesus.

—

Photo source: here

Christian Community Isn’t Parasitic

Mike Leake

No-Ticks-squareIt was 1941 and Great Britain was in the midst of their engagement in World War II. Winston Churchill was the leader and was tasked with giving a speech to the House of Commons. Amongst other things he gave these words:

Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature. I see that a speaker at the week-end said that this was a time when leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture. (Churchill)

You cannot lead with your ear to the ground. You cannot lead if you’re constantly checking the pulse of people. But what pastor can’t at least somewhat identify with the megachurch pastor who informed Os Guinness that he was always “haunted” when he looked at his congregation because he realized “they are always only two weeks away from leaving for another church.” (Guinness, 71)

In his book, The Call, Guinness laments what he calls a “leadership co-dependent on followership”. His words are very much in line with the insights of Edwin Friedman in Failure of Nerve who spoke of the “fallacy of empathy. He said:

…a focus on being empathic towards others, rather than on being responsible for one’s own integrity, can actually lessen the odds for an organism’s survival by lowering the other’s pain thresholds, helping them to avoid challenge and compromising the mobilization of their “nerve”. (Friedman, 144)

I agree, in part, with the insights of Friedman. And I give Guiness a hearty “amen” when he calls us to be “inner-directed rather than other-directed” and to “truly make one audience decisive, the Audience of One”. (74) There is a type of leading which is actually harming because it’s own identity is centered upon the response of another. That will inevitably lead to harm of self and others.

What About John Maxwell?

But what do we do with the insights of John Maxwell? There must be some truth to the statement that “He that thinketh he leadeth, and hath no one following, is only taking a walk. If you’re all alone as a leader, are you really leading?” (source) Aren’t the insights of Maxwell, and those who make similar claims about leadership, pushing us into this co-dependent relationship which both Guinness and Friedman decry?

If Maxwell is absolute then there would have been times in which Jesus wasn’t leading but only taking a walk. Was he leading as he went to the Cross? Certainly, even if all his followers left Him, he was leading the charge and securing our redemption. Leadership can, and at times must, be lonely. Friedman and Guinness are correct on this point. 

Where does 1 John 1:4 Fit?

Maxwell’s insights, then, cannot be absolute. But neither can those of Friedman. Otherwise, what do you do with 1 John 1:4?

And we are writing these things so that our[a] joy may be complete.

Some manuscripts do have “your” joy may be complete. And that makes more sense, doesn’t it? We wouldn’t be baffled much by a verse that said essentially, “I’m writing this so your joy in Jesus will be complete”. But the fact that it makes more sense means that it’s least likely. Scribes didn’t tweak a text to make it more obscure. So “our joy may be complete” is the preferred reading.

The Bible paints a picture of us as individuals—each a unique and special creation—but also as parts of a whole. No one person can accurately image God by themselves. Sola fide may be a thing but sola gaudium (joy) isn’t. Sure, the heart knows it’s own delight. But the fruit of the Spirit is always exercised and dependent upon community. This is why John says here that their (apostles) joy is tied up with their (audience) obedience to Christ.

The Difference Between Parasitic and Symbiotic Relationships

If my joy is tied up in your joy because of a parasitic relationship, then this is far from healthy. Consider the pastor which Guinness mentioned who was afraid that people in his congregation would soon leave. This is likely a parasitic type of relationship. This pastor has his own identity wrapped up into the congregation. In this way “their joy is his joy” in an incredibly unhealthy way. The sheep are ultimately there for him.

But there is a way in which Christ has united two different organisms into one body. That’s the nature of the church. This is a symbiotic relationship. In this way your joy is tied up with my joy. To deny this is to deny the vital companionship which Christ has purchased for us. And it is this type of symbiotic joy to which John speaks.

If I need the joy of another in a parasitic way then I am always going to be a danger to a local community. I need them in the wrong way. But if I believe I don’t need others for my joy to be complete (in a symbiotic way) then I’ve also missed the mark on Christian community. We need one another as a brain needs a heart and a heart needs a brain. We don’t need one another as a tick needs a host. This difference is subtle but vital.