What does the Great Commission have to do with the book of Luke?

Abstract:

This sermon explores into the themes, characteristics, and purposes of the book of Luke in order to understand the importance of the Great Commission, which is to spread the gospel to all nations. Salvation for all is the central theme of this Synoptic Gospel, and the Great Commission is happening through the work of the Holy Spirit. The authorship of Luke, a Gentile physician, missionary and theological historian, is well supported by external and internal evidence. This book is both a literary masterpiece and a historiography which seeks to reassure new Christians that the message about Jesus is reliable.

Title:

What does the Great Commission have to do with the book of Luke?

What is the Great Commission? What does it have to do with the book of Luke? We are all called to the Great Commission, which is to spread the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15). Therefore it is very important for us to know the Synoptic Gospels. A good place to begin our exploration of this is the Book of Luke, where the arrival of God’s salvation, available for all people, is the central theme.[1]

First, let’s look at the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels. Consider the following illustration: Three blind men are brought before an elephant. They are allowed to touch the elephant and are asked to describe the elephant. Each will come up with a different description, depending their individual perceptions and which body parts they felt. Nevertheless, the features they describe are all true of the elephant.

(dunno if I'm going nuts or what, but doing this assignment makes me feel Jesus is like the elephant in this music video! Plus the people with boat, people touching elephant, and elephant walking on water scenaries as well as major cities around the world scenaries!)

Have you noticed the striking similarities when you read through the three Synoptic Gospels? At the same time, they are far from mere copies of each other. The question of the relationship between these three Gospels has been termed the synoptic problem.[2] Most New Testament scholars view that Mark was the first of the Synoptics written and that it served as a source for Matthew and Luke, because though Matthew and Luke differ considerably from one another, 93% of Mark is found in one or another.[3] However, Mark alone cannot account for all the Synoptic material, so additional sources has been proposed.[4] Most scholars believe that Luke used at least three sources.[5]

Character portrayal differs in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark portrays Jesus as the Son of God suffering obediently as the Servant of the Lord.[6] Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.[7] Luke’s portrait of Jesus is multifaceted but the best summarising description is the Saviour for all people.[8] In Mark, the centurion sees Jesus’ death and declares him to be “the Son of God.” In Luke the centurion announces Jesus is “innocent” or “righteous”.[9] The disciples in Mark appear as failure, in Matthew as having little faith, and Luke as “Apostles in training” where the negative scenes of the disciples’ failings are softened.[10] The religious leaders are also portrayed differently: In Matthew, they are evil to the core, with no hope of redemption. In Luke, their primary trait is self-righteousness, resulting in foolish rejection of God’s invitation to salvation. But because their failure comes from foolishness, there is still hope. In fact, throughout Acts, Paul goes from synagogue to synagogue, calling out a faithful remnant.[11]

The gospel writers were interested in more than just reporting to their communities anecdotes about Jesus. Each writer shaped the narrative development so that it addresses concerns that were current to his community.[12] Even if there seems to be a few apparent contraindications, the general trustworthiness of the Gospels could easily remain untarnished because the student who takes time to read any three reliable historians’ accounts of other ancient figures or events will frequently find much more variation among them than he encounters in the Synoptics.[13]

To understand Luke’s work, we need to know about the author, initial audience, as well as the circumstances that gave rise to this literature.[14] Who was Luke? The only “Luke” we know from the New Testament was an associate of Paul, described to as one of his “fellow workers” and “our dear friend Luke, the doctor”.[15] It’s widely recognised today that not only are Luke-Acts written by the same author but they are a literary unity: a single two-volume work. Luke’s the longest book in the New Testament. Compared with the other synoptics, it begins earlier with John’s birth and ends later with Jesus’ ascension.[16] A curious feature of Acts is that the narrative, normally in the third person, switches abruptly to the first person at several points, suggesting that the author himself was present.[17]

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? On one hand, there’s evidence he was not familiar with some aspects of Jewish life. On the other hand, his desire to cast his characters as faithful Jews shows a deep veneration of Judaism.[18] Luke appears in the list of Paul’s non-Jewish associates following Colossians 4:11.[19] The most likely solution is that Luke was probably a God-fearer: a Gentile worshipper of the God of Israel.[20] If that’s the case then he’s probably the only non-Jew author in the New Testament.[21]

What is Luke’s literary style? While the prologue of Luke’s written in the classiest literary Greek of the entire New Testament[22], the birth narrative has a strong Semitic style befitting its Jewish context. So he’s clearly a skilled literary artist, able to adapt style to fit the occasion. How about the genre? Whereas Mark and Matthew fit the broad characteristics of biography[23], the genre of Luke is a historiography,[24] as Luke provides a clear statement of intent in 1:1-4, that he carefully investigated these events himself, and dates the Gospel with reference to Roman history. Interestingly, many events are not arranged in chronological order.[25] Luke was not just a chronicler of events, but a man with a message.[26] He was a theological historian interested in disclosing to us the plans and purposes of God.[27] The best term to sum up Luke’s essential message is salvation.[28] 

Who is Luke addressing? He seems to be addressing a certain Theophilus.[29] The name means “one who loves God,” so some claim Luke is writing generally to believers. More likely, Theophilus was an individual, probably the patron who sponsored Luke’s project, as the writing of a book of this length was an expensive endeavour in the ancient world. The address “most excellent” suggest Theophilus’s high social or political status, and “things you have been taught” suggest that Theophilus was a new Christian.[30] The diversity of Luke’s work suggests that he was writing for a variety of reasons: to teach believers about the origin of their faith, to defend Christianity against its opponents, and to establish a firm historical foundation for the gospel now advancing around the world[31]: that the message about Jesus is reliable[32]. It’s all very relevant to Christians today too. How about the date of writing? The arguments are complex, but in summary AD64/65 best fit the evidence.[33]

Let’s look at the themes. The central theological theme of Luke is Salvation for all.[34] Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham, but Luke’s goes back to Adam, which fits with his emphasis on the universal application of the Gospel: Jesus is the Saviour of all humanity.[35]^,[36] Though all the Synoptics describe the mission of the Twelve, only Luke records a second mission involving seventy of his disciples (10:1-20). The number seventy probably represents the nations of the world, since seventy names are listed in the “table of nations” in Genesis 10.[37]

The most unique structural feature of Luke’s Gospel is the extended journey to Jerusalem, or travel narrative, from 9:51 to 19:27. Luke takes ten chapters to treat a period which in Mark occupies a single chapter. Many of the famous Gospel parables and narratives, such as the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, and Zacchaeus appear during this period,[38] which are concerned with God’s special care for the poor and outcast, so this section has sometimes been called the “Gospel for the Outcast. All of these in some way carry the theological theme of reversal: humble “outsiders” receive blessings or commendation, while prideful “insiders” suffer rebuke or loss.[39] Indeed, Mary praises God for exalting the humble and bringing down the mighty in the birth-narrative hymn, and Jesus mingles with people from all positions in life.[40] In fact, compared to the other Synoptics, the theme of Jesus’ association with sinners is even more prevalent in Luke. Furthermore, Luke speaks more of Samaritans than the other Gospels do, and puts more emphasis to the women, referring to thirteen women not mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels.[41] In contrast, the religious leaders’ “self-righteousness” results in foolish rejection of God’s invitation to salvation.[42]

The travel narrative also demonstrates the theme of how Jerusalem plays an ambivalent role in Luke, representing both the glorious place of God’s salvation and the nation which rejects salvation. The Gospel begins and ends in the temple in Jerusalem (1:9; 24:53). Jerusalem’s the place where God’s presence dwells from which his salvation will be achieved (9:31), yet it’s also a symbol of God’s stubborn and foolish people (13:33-34). In much of Luke, Jesus journeys toward the cross[43] to Jerusalem and weeps over the city for her rejection of him and for the rejection which will follow.[44] Then at the end of the book, salvation is achieved with Jesus’ ascension and the message now goes forth from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.[45]

The importance of the Holy Spirit in the writings of Luke has been long and widely recognised.[46] Another key theme is that the coming of the Spirit heralds the dawn of the new age. The activity of the Spirit appears in three distinct periods: Firstly, the birth narrative, where John, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon were all filled with the Spirit.[47] Secondly, during Jesus’ ministry, whereby he was “anointed” by the spirit at his baptism and “filled with the Spirit” to accomplish his task.[48] Thirdly, following his ascension to God, Jesus pours out the Spirit to empower his followers to accomplish their commission.[49] There’s also the theme of prayer and intimate fellowship with the Father, as Luke lays special emphasis on Jesus’s prayer life.[50] He records nine prayers of Jesus, of which only two appear in the other gospels.[51]

In summary, the authorship of Luke, a Gentile physician, missionary and theological historian, is well supported by external and internal evidence.[52] This book’s both a literary masterpiece and a historiography which seeks to reassure new Christians that the message about Jesus is reliable[53] and God’s salvation is for all.[54] The Great Commission’s happening through the work of the Holy Spirit and all Christians are called.

Bibliography:

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007.

France, R. T. Luke, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Nickle, Keith F. Preaching the Gospel of Luke, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

Nickle, Keith F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

O’Harae, Ian. “Introducing the Synoptic Gospels.” Lecture Notes, Morling College, March 18, 2015.

O’Harae, Ian. “Luke.” Lecture Notes, Morling College, April 1, 2015.

Strauss, Mark L. Four portraits, one Jesus, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Twelftree, Graham H. People of the spirit: exploring Luke's view of the church, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s Blabberings. Last modified April 23, 2015. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.

---

[1] Mark L. Strauss, Four portraits, one Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 284.

[2] Strauss, Four portraits, 46-47.

[3] Strauss, Four portraits, 50. Most of Mark (93%) is found in Matthew or Luke, suggesting either that Mark abbreviated both Matthew and Luke, or that Matthew and Luke used both used Mark. As Mark’s individual stories tend to be fuller in detail than theirs, this suggest they have abridged Mark’s accounts rather than vice versa.

[4] Strauss, Four portraits, 51.

[5] Strauss, Four portraits, 262. Mark, Q, and L.

[6] Strauss, Four portraits, 206.

[7] Strauss, Four portraits, 254.

[8] Strauss, Four portraits, 281.

[9] Strauss, Four portraits, 279.

[10] Strauss, Four portraits, 282-283.

[11] Strauss, Four portraits, 283-284.

[12] Keith F. Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 166.

[13] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007), 195.

[14] Graham H. Twelftree, People of the spirit: exploring Luke's view of the church, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 5.

[15] France, R. T. Luke, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1-2. 2Timothy 4:11; Colossians 4:14.

[16] Strauss, Four portraits, 261. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16.

[17] France, Luke, 2. None of this amounts to proof of Luke’s authorship but that seems the most adequate explanation of such data as we have.

[18] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 6. eg. Luke 2:22 cf. Lev. 12:4, 6.

[19] France, Luke, 2.

[20] Strauss, Four portraits, 290.

[21] France, Luke, 2.

[22] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 138.

[23] Ian O’Harae, “Introducing the Synoptic Gospels,” (Lecture Notes, Morling College, March 18, 2015), 4.

[24] Strauss, Four portraits, 262. Luke 1:5; 2:1-3; 3:1-2.

[25] Strauss, Four portraits, 263.

[26] France, Luke, 6. Luke is a sophisticated writer who knows how to tell a good story, and putting the elements of the story in chronological order may not always be the most effective way of presenting it, as there exists other types of order, such as thematic order.

[27] Keith F. Nickle, Preaching the Gospel of Luke, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 3.

[28] France, Luke, 6.

[29] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 10.

[30] Strauss, Four portraits, 290.

[31] Strauss, Four portraits, 291.

[32] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 9.

[33] France, Luke, 4.

[34] Strauss, Four portraits, 284.

[35] Strauss, Four portraits, 268.

[36] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 156.

[37] Strauss, Four portraits, 285.

[38] Strauss, Four portraits, 263.

[39] Strauss, Four portraits, 274.

[40] Strauss, Four portraits, 286. Luke 1:51-53

[41] Strauss, Four portraits, 287.

[42] Strauss, Four portraits, 283.

[43] Ian O’Harae, “Luke,” (Lecture Notes, Morling College, April 1, 2015), 2. Luke 9:51; 18:31-34; 19:11, 41-44.

[44] Strauss, Four portraits, 287. Luke 19:41-44.

[45] Strauss, Four portraits, 288. Luke 24:47.

[46] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 13.

[47] Strauss, Four portraits, 285.

[48] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 151.

[49] Strauss, Four portraits, 286. Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18; 10:21.

[50] Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, 156.

[51] Strauss, Four portraits, 289. Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 9:28; 11:1; 23:32; 23:34; 23:46.

[52] Strauss, Four portraits, 293.

[53] Twelftree, People of the spirit, 9.

[54] Strauss, Four portraits, 284.

Personal Life Reflection

Abstract:

In this personal life reflection, I looked back at three significant experiences which have impacted my ministry formation to this point of time. The first major formative event was the break-up of an on and off long distance relationship which made me turn towards God and taught me how to forgive and heal. My second major formative event was a renewal of my spirit during a low point in my life which led to a transformation and pointed me towards a career of my calling which gave me increasing self-awareness and linked me up with the local community. My third major formative event was the sudden passing away of my father which shifted my focus from task orientation to relationship orientation. My career and my personality preferences are a good fit. I believe my calling is in career missions. Whenever appropriate, I can incorporate my own experiences and testimonies into the conversation in my work place. I will also consider participating in medical missions.

 ____________

My parents got married after dating each other for six months. Soon after marriage that they realised each other’s flaws, which they had so carefully hidden during their courtship. This marked the beginnings of a rocky marriage. My mother’s career as a diplomat probably prevented their marriage from ending in divorce: the less they see each other, the less friction! I was born in 1983. When I was eight, I moved to the United States where I accepted Jesus as my saviour. In my teenage years I drifted away from God. Then through some providences I returned to God. Subsequently I got into medical school but did not attend church because I thought having salvation was enough.

The break-up of an on and off long distance relationship in 2006 was my first major formative event. Long distance relationships lacked frictions. Only after the break up did I realise I had idealised that person so much I turned him into an idol. It also made me realise that sharing a common short-term goal can only tie two people until the accomplishment of that goal. For two people to be together for a lifetime, there needs to be common values and direction in life. This break-up made me turn to God again. Through God’s power I learned how to forgive and heal.

My second major formative event was in 2008, where I made a decision to commit myself to attending and serving in one church. It was a low point in my life. I was a resident doctor in career crisis: I knew clearly what specialties I did not want to do, but had no idea what specialties I wanted to do. I did not think I will have any chance of getting a boyfriend if I continue the same lifestyle working in the hospital. I felt stuck and was pessimistic, with a heavy weight on the top of my head constantly. If God had not intervened, I would have become clinically depressed. Fortunately it was during a church camp that I suddenly felt such a strong presence of God’s Spirit amongst me that it filled me with joy and all the heaviness on the top of my head lifted off. Such a transformation occurred in me that I burned with passion for God and no longer felt so disgruntled against my parents. Subsequently, my mother, who was quite critical of my faith, accepted Jesus as her saviour!

I ended up choosing a career in General Practice and enjoyed it very much. I learned a lot about myself through serving in my church and my everyday exposure to the community as a GP. With increasing self-awareness, I had a clearer sense of direction. I was also better able to identify my strengths and weaknesses, as well as how I function cognitively. I also became familiar with the local community and have the resources to assist my church in outreaching to the community.

My third major formative event was the sudden passing away of my father in 2013 from a heart attack. I received an emergency call that my father had been admitted into the hospital with a heart attack in Taiwan. My church pastors interceded for him and I immediately flew overseas. All seemed to have gone smoothly in hospital and he was discharged: luckily he did a prayer to accept Jesus that day, because two days later he passed away suddenly! My emotional garbage can exploded and I realised I had been suppressing many of my emotions into my subconsciousness for most of my life. The good thing was that my faith gave me resilience and I still trusted God[1].

However, this event made me revaluate my relationship with my father and realise the shallowness of it. My father had been a stoic person who didn’t share his thoughts. Our communications tended to be task-orientated. It was a pity I never truly gotten to know him. I did not give him the time and patience needed to establish a deeper relationship or look out for the nonverbal communications. This event made me slow my pace down and treasure my interpersonal relationships more. My focus started shifting onto building relationships, especially the relationship with my mother, which subsequently led to her baptism. This event also made me reflect on the brevity of life and triggered a sense of urgency to better equip myself for God’s calling, so I decide to study the Master of Divinity.

A Christian leader is a person with God-given capacity and God-given responsibility who is influencing a specific group of God's people toward God's purposes.[2] I have worked as a GP for several years in Eastwood and many of my regular patients are Chinese migrants. I generally enjoy the interaction and would like to positively influence and direct them towards God.

My Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) result is Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, Judging (INTJ)[3]. This is consistent across my previous MBTI results, self-assessment in class, MBTI instrument result, and “Best Fit” type.[4] This result is consistent with my natural preferences as I tend to be self-reflective, analyse the world through observing patterns and meanings, make decisions objectively, and prefer to plan things ahead of time over last minute changes. I think these traits are well compatible with my job as a GP. However, Jesus seem to display both of the preferences of each dichotomy[5], so we should not use our preference as an excuse to not participate in something.

According to Clinton’s six phases of leadership[6], I am at Phase III, where I know my strengths and am shifting my focus on building relationships. Being introverted, I prefer evangelising to people who I have ongoing relationship with, such as my regular patients. I believe my calling is in career missions. Whenever I identify a suitable patient, I can incorporate my own experiences and testimonies into the conversation, and will also consider participating in medical missions.

Bibliography:

Baab, Lynne M. Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively.  Bethesda, Md.: Alban Institute, 1998.

Clinton, J. Robert. The Emerging Leader. Colorado Springs: Barnabas Publishers, 1989. 

Kent, Gayle. “Introduction to MBTI.” Lecture Notes, Morling College. March 19, 2015. 

Kent, Gayle. “Activities for Applying Type.” Lecture Notes, Morling College. March 26, 2015. 

Myers, Isabel Briggs, Linda K. Kirby, and Katharine D. Myers. Introduction to Type: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 6th ed. Parkville, VIC: Consulting Psychologists Press Asia Pacific, 1998.

Myers, Isabel Briggs, and Peter B. Myers. Gifts Differing.  Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1995.

Reeves, Nancy Christine. Spirituality for Extroverts: And Tips for Those Who Love Them. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.

Smith, James Bryan. The Good and Beautiful God. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010.

Stadler, Anita. “Leadership Emergence Theory in the Corporate Context”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5 (2009): 115-122. 

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. "Preference You Tend to Show."  http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/preference-you-tend-to-show.htm.

———. "Understanding Mbti® Type Dynamics."  http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/.

[1] James Bryan Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010), 65.

[2] J. Robert Clinton, The Emerging Leader. (Colorado Springs: Barnabas Publishers, 1989), 1.

[3] Isabel Briggs Myers, Linda K. Kirby, and Katharine D. Myers. Introduction to Type: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, (Parkville, VIC: Consulting Psychologists Press Asia Pacific, 1998), 15. We all use both sides of the dichotomies, but one is our natural preference.

[4] Gayle Kent, “Introduction to MBTI,” (Lecture Notes, Morling College. March 19, 2015), 30-31.

[5] Gayle Kent, “Activities for Applying Type,” (Lecture Notes, Morling College. March 26, 2015), 23.

[6] Anita Stadler, “Leadership Emergence Theory in the Corporate Context”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5 (2009): 117.

Notes from the book “Turning points: An Extraordinary Journey into the suicidal mind”

Suicidal behavior:

With very few exceptions, suicide is present in every culture. There are those who perceive their existence as so frustrating, unrewarding and meaningless that they are induced to “fall by their own hand”. In most cases their reasoning is flawed, the product of an emotionally troubled mind. If we want to avoid the irreparable, we need to interfere with this process as soon as possible. Very frequently, the subject themselves perform this operation; sometimes their proxies (a partner or friends) intervene; on other occasions general practitioners or counselors do so. Crisis intervention is a key concept in suicide prevention: it assumes that acute suicidality lasts for a maximum of several hours, or a few days. Once the crisis is overcome, subjects may regain control of their lives. Unfortunately, sometimes nobody intervenes, despite the fact that most suicidal people communicate, more or less directly, their intention to die. In approximately half of all suicides, the victims have consulted their GP in the months prior to death.[1]

Hypothetically, if we were able to stop the suffering, whatever its origin, very few people would ever contemplate suicide. Death is just the medium to avoid the continuation of the unbearable. Present-day society considers the choice of dying to be acceptable in only very few situations. For example, it can be acceptable to sacrifice one’s own life to save the life of others, or to die for one’s own country.[2]

The more suicidal behavior is adopted as a problem-solving strategy in crisis situations, the more this ‘solution’ is imitated. For example, if a mother attempts suicide in a moment of personal difficulties, the probably of a child following her example is very high, far bigger than in a family without such an experience.[3]

The suicide attempters:

Trevor, one of the suicide attempters described by De Leo, seemed to lack premeditation or preparation for the fatal moment. He was heading to a disco and going home just for a quick change of clothes, and then suddenly decided to pull the gun on himself. This is the way many suicides do actually happen. Most probably the idea of suicide was in Trevor’s mind for quite some time, ready for enacting in a particular moment of despair. De Leo learn from those who survived their suicide attempt that such ideation can become operational in the space of a few minutes, even seconds. The ambivalence that Trevor describes during his suicide attempt is typical of most suicidal acts: he prepares to die but would like to be rescued by his friends.[4]

We also see inspiring stories of women who were sexually abused by multiple close perpetrators, who actually became counsellors and great healers to others after they overcame their crisis.[5]

Sergio, one of the suicide attempters described by De Leo, described the following feeling as he was preparing to jump off his tallest silo, “Life has nothing to say and nothing to give to me anymore. I had no curiosity for anything, anymore. All I had was emptiness, darkness, and total disconnection.”[6] Then something incredible happened when he jumped off, “I immediately thought that I did not want to die… And then it came to my mind, all the energy and effort that I put into that property during my entire life… That property was everything to me and, honestly, was not bad at all. Maybe I could be useful again. In that precise moment I wanted live, with all of my being. But to die, I began my fall face down. Now I had to try to redirect my body. If I succeeded, I thought that, maybe by landing on my feet, I could eventually survive.”[7]

Compared to women, men lack the capacity to cope with a lonely life, a life where they are often separated from their children and living in financial constraints. Australian statistics provide chilling evidence that separation from an intimate is the most frequent life event in the year preceding suicide. Men are not protected by the network of social relationships that characterizes the female world. Men are mostly alone; and even if they have a few good mates, they talk very little with them, and certainly not about those things that are torturing their hearts. Thus, their instinct is to ‘isolate’: they don’t like to show vulnerabilities or defeats. Research shows that men often think that their peers would not understand their private suffering; and that, if confessed, this could make them seem weak – a ‘loser’. They already feel ashamed and their self-esteem has taken a battering.[8]

In many of the cases described, the suicide attempt actually gave a dramatic shift in thinking and they are happy to be alive[9].

Maria, one of the suicide attempters, does not know if she really wanted to die; probably not. What she knows for sure is that she wanted to stop suffering, to escape from an unbearable situation, where her anxiety was ‘like a devil that bites you inside, that squeezes your lungs’. This is a term coined by famous American psychologist, Edwin Shneidman, as “egression”, the desire to get rid of suffocating feelings and ‘psychic pain’. Shneidman explained that in many cases suicidal subjects do not want to die but rather to stop their psychological pain.[10]

Those left behind:

Life of those left behind will never be the same. Their narratives are characterized by disbelief, resentment, insomnia, irritability, anxiety, depression, anger and feelings of guilt. Equally painful is the stigmatization by other people: when a suicide occurs the entire family is assumed to be ‘contaminated’ and can spread dangerous suicide-inducing germs. Diane, a survivor left behind by her mother, describes a life lacking a ‘limb’, and she demonstrates an amputee’s adaptation, as she says, like someone who has been deprived of an important part of him/herself. She can still achieve, but her life requires extra effort, extra resilience. Her legacy is that ‘the sorrow remains and will always remain’, together with ‘a profound sense of misfortune and sterility’.[11] Francesca, a mother left behind by her son, describes that “When you deeply love someone, a piece of you is inside that person. And if this person goes away, that piece is lost forever. It is not with you anymore. You don’t own it anymore”.[12]

De Leo, Diego. Turning points: an extraordinary journey into the suicidal mind, Queensland: Australian Academic Press, 2010.

---

[1] Diego De Leo, Turning points: an extraordinary journey into the suicidal mind, (Queensland: Australian Academic Press, 2010), 10.

[2] De Leo, Turning points, 12.

[3] De Leo, Turning points, 14.

[4] De Leo, Turning points, 60.

[5] De Leo, Turning points, 47,70.

[6] De Leo, Turning points, 89.

[7] De Leo, Turning points, 94-95.

[8] De Leo, Turning points, 106.

[9] De Leo, Turning points, 88, 97, 116.

[10] De Leo, Turning points, 149.

[11] De Leo, Turning points, 157.

[12] De Leo, Turning points, 173.

Weekly reflection on “The Good and Beautiful God” Chapter 5 God is Love

Notes from the book:

Many people live with the assumption that God’s love is conditional. Our behaviour, it’s assumed, determines how God feels about us. Early on in our live we discover that the world we live in is based on performance: some of the first words we learn are good and bad. We hear things like “you ate all of your peas, good girl” or “do not write on the wall with your crayon, bad boy”[1]. Jesus not only revealed the Father in his stories, he reflects the Father in his character and his actions.

In the story of Matthew the tax collector and the Pharisees (Matthew 9:9-13), Jesus invites Matthew to be one of his disciples. The tax collectors were thought of as traitors and cheats as they collected tax from the Jewish people for the Roman government and were notorious for skimming money off the top for themselves. This is amazing, considering that in the first century, a rabbi was usually very selective when choosing his disciples. Being selected by a rabbi was a rare and great privilege that was offered only to those who were deemed especially righteous. The Pharisees, a group of strict religious men, criticised Jesus for eating with sinners[2]. In reality the Pharisees are just as sick and sinful as the tax collectors; they just fail to admit it. The tax collectors, on the other hand, have no pretense. Jesus’ narrative of unconditional acceptance goes against the grain of the performance-based-acceptance narrative that is so deeply embedded in our lives. People may wonder how could God possibly love sinners, and that he might be able to love them if they promise to improve. But this is not what Jesus taught. In Jesus’ actions and words, he proclaimed that God loves sinners as they are, and not as they should be[3].

The story of the prodigal son also illustrates this (Luke 15:11-32). God, it appears, is very fond of sinners. Not their sin. The parable is not so much about a sinner getting saved as it is about a God who loves even those who sin against him[4]. Interestingly, the prodigal son’s elder brother's problem represents the upright and pious who could not accept the radical message of God’s unconditional love[5]. This is similar to the parable of the workers in the vineyard who worked different amounts for the same wage. Jesus is striking at the heart of the problem we have with grace: we don’t like it. It seems unfair, but in reality it is perfectly fair. God is gracious to all. It smacks against our performance-based-acceptance narrative. Our self-righteousness separates us from God: it does not turn God from us, but us from God. It is not my sin that moves me away from God, it is my refusal of grace, both for myself and for others. Jesus is essentially saying to the Pharisees, “when you see the tax collectors, the prostitutes and other known sinners coming to me, you should rejoice: they were dead and now are alive. Instead, you grumble.”[6]

Reflections:

The author writes, “Our self-righteousness does not turn God from us, but us from God. It is not my sin that moves me away from God, it is my refusal of grace, both for myself and for others”[7].

This is a very interesting statement. When new believers make a prayer to accept Jesus as saviour, it involves the confession of sins, as sin separates us from God. Yet the author says “it is not my sin that moves me away from God”.

I think it is a “which comes first, chicken or the egg?” type of scenario. I believe that if a person is close to God, they are less likely to want to sin. After all, our behaviour reflects the status of our hearts. So I believe a person who continually sins is someone who’s quite distant from God.

However, a person who does not commit an act of sin is not necessarily free of sin, as one can still be full of sinful thoughts. Sometimes a person may be so proud of their good behaviour that their pride blinds them from seeing their own sins. Take my own example: I was a well behaved teen, and my parents tend to label “that kid is a bad kid that kid is a good kid” etc., so I tended to see the world as black and white. I thought of myself as “good” and jeer at those who I thought was “bad”. I got into medical school and thought I deserved what I got for my hard work.

As I mature, I started to realise that none of these were to my own credit. After all, everyone is born with a different set of cards: Some received a very good set, being born in a rich family, talented, good looking and intelligent. Some received a very bad set, in poverty and handicapped. And even if say I was lucky and had an extremely good set of cards when I was born, it is nothing to get too arrogant about because it is not even to my own merit, since no one can choose what set of cards they are born with. I know this in my mind conceptually but sometimes my heart still finds it hard to accept when grace[8] falls upon people who behaved wickedly or lived their life in sloth. Nevertheless, this narrative helps increase my tolerance of God’s unconditional love and graciousness for all, and I pray that God continue to expand my heart’s tolerance capacity.

Bibliography:

Smith, James Bryan. The Good and Beautiful God. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010.

---

[1] James Bryan Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 94.

[2] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 97.

[3] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 98.

[4] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 99.

[5] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 101.

[6] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 102.

[7] James Bryan Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 77.

[8] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 102.

Coincidentally my assignment for another Morling College subject NT501 is on the Pharisees.

Below is a video with more information on Pharisaism and Jesus' ministry:

https://youtu.be/u8vakyahAUk

Weekly reflection on “The Good and Beautiful God” Chapter 4 God is Generous

Notes from the book:

We may have seen Christians who preach “believe or be thrown into the lake of fire” on the streets[1]. This narrative is extreme but not uncommon. It says that what God most wants is for us not to sin and instead to do good. This narrative is rooted, as all false narratives are, in a half-truth. True, God does not want us to sin, and that is because sin harms us, and acts of goodness are healing both to us and to the recipients of our goodness. There is a cultural narrative of earning where we learn from a young age that our parents’ love id dependent on our good behavior[2].

There are also a some biblical narrative of earning, such as Israelites being punished and sent to exile by Yahweh for disobedience, and David’s illegitimate child dies, presumably because it was conceived in an act of adultery. Yet there is a larger narrative that should guide our understanding of these stories. The Israelites were chosen by Yahweh for no apparent reason: they have done nothing to deserve it. David’s act of adultery and murder should have resulted in his own death, but instead he becomes a man “after God’s own heart.” To say that sin has consequences is different than saying that because of our sin God entirely rejects us[3]. If we take an isolated story of verse and try to build our doctrine of God on it, we commit biblical malpractice. The dominant narrative of the Bible is a story of unearned grace. The metanarrative of the Bible is the story of the steadfast love of God that culminates in the incarnation, death and resurrection of God on behalf of a wayward world. The earning-favour narrative has worked its way into many of our churches[4]. God is good, you are bad, try harder[5].

In Matthew 20:1-15, the labourers who were engaged last show nothing to warrant a claim to a full day’s wages; that they receive it is entirely due to the goodness of their employer[6]. We live in a world where people demand, oppress, wound and condemn. In our world we earn what we get, so we project that onto God. It is easy to conceive of a demanding, oppressive, condemning, wounding god who must be appeased. The God Jesus knows is utterly generous[7].

Love and forgiveness, acceptance and kindness, are not commodities that diminish in their giving. When we offer forgiveness we do not have less of it, nor do we diminish our capacity to forgive each time we forgive. So why do we so seldom live generously? We live from a condition of scarcity. We never got enough love from our parents, enough toys on our birthday and enough affirmation from those who know us. We learn that we must protect what we have. If we give it away, we might end up in dire straits. The church is also often a place lacking in generosity, where some church pastors are fearful of the prospect of a new church being built close to their church: All other churches are wrong. Only we have it right. Our church must succeed. Who cares if theirs fail?[8]

God is interested in something much more important than our good works. The greatest commandment is “love God with all you have. God wants you to know and to love him, fully enjoying God forever. Julian of Norwich once wrote, “The greatest honour we can give to God is to live gladly because of the knowledge of his love.”[9]

The narrative of those who preach “believe or be thrown into the lake of fire” does not lead people to love God, only to fear him. This narrative uses fear and guilt to get others to change and does not produce genuine change. The narrative that God loves us and longs for us to love him in return provides a genuine and lasting incentive to change[10].

Great American pastor A.W. Tozer wrote: The most important thing about a person is what they think about God. If we think God as harsh and demanding, we will probably cower in fear and keep our distance from God. If we think of God as a vague and impersonal force in the universe, we will probably have a vague and impersonal relationship with this god. That’s why it’s crucial that we have the right thoughts about God. It will determine everything we do. If we have low or false views of God, we are actually committing a form of idolatry, worshipping a false god[11].

Reflections:

The false narrative explored in this chapter is, “Love and forgiveness are commodities that are exchanged for performance. God’s love, acceptance and forgiveness must be merited by right living. What God most wants is for us not to sin and instead to do good”[12].

This false narrative is a works-based narrative that gives us guilt whenever we do something wrong. This narrative would draw me further from God because if I stumble, I’d feel so guilty that I actually draw away from God. Fortunately I not have this tendency anymore, as those who stumble are in a greater need of God’s presence in their lives. This false narrative can also make me feel very guilty if I do not do enough good, and take the credit for myself when I perform well.

Take the example of spreading the gospel to my relatives: Spreading the gospel is doing good. If I hold the false narrative described above then what I do would be driven by the following guilt and fear: if any of them end up unsaved, it is because I did not do enough good. And if they accepted the gospel and turn to God, then it’s because of the good work I’ve done. This performance-orientated false narrative may put so much pressure on me that I lose my enjoyment of co-working with God.

My current perspective is that whether or not people turn to God is outside of my control. I can only do my best to think up of ways to spread the gospel and act on them when the timing is right. And if people actually turn to God, it is God who did it. So when I see opportunities to spread the gospel to my relatives, I act upon it out of love, and leave the results in God’s hands. 

Bibliography:

Smith, James Bryan. The Good and Beautiful God. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010.

---

[1] James Bryan Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 75.

[2] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 77.

[3] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 78.

[4] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 79.

[5] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 80.

[6] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 83.

[7] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 84.

[8] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 85.

[9] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 85-86.

[10] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 87.

[11] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 89.

[12] Smith, The Good and Beautiful God, 77.