Writing in the 90’s, Garland’s word choice is oddly poignant for today. Commenting on chapter one of Mark He notes the particular way Jesus healed a leper. He touched him then heal him. Jesus was willing to touch the leper as a show of his compassion before he displayed his power. Such compassion should encouraging the church to embody the same courageous virtue in our world. Garland writes:
“Humans are psychosomatic beings, and healing involves mind, body, emotions, and spirit. These first miracles reveal that Jesus embodies God’s mercy and purpose to take away the diseases, infirmities, and sins of the people. The leper pleads: “If you are willing, you can make me clean” (1:40). Reaching out to touch one who was branded untouchable by religion and society dispels any doubts about Jesus’ willingness. The leper does not have to convince him that he is even worth the effort. This man with his disease does not horrify Jesus. His “power to cleanse is thus demonstrably greater than the power of the leprosy to contaminate.” But touching, hands-on contact, makes us vulnerable. In Jesus’ day, the concern was impurity; in our day, the concern is contagion.(p.87)
The miracles in this section also reveal that Jesus is not someone who is aloof, inaccessible, or detached. Our culture does not touch, and many people live in isolation from others. We seal ourselves off from one another with our privacy fences and retreat to the inner sanctum of the family room. The church is sometimes in danger of doing the same by retreating to its members-only, fully equipped Family Life Center, which becomes a safe cocoon from contact with the harsh realities of a disease-ridden, sin-sick world. We want others quarantined from us so that they will not infect us. But those who bear the name of Christ need to minister in the name of their Lord to those who are the untouchables in our society.”(p.88)
Ask yourself what act of compassion is God calling you too?
Note
All quotes from David E. Garland, Mark. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Page number after the quote.
In preparation to write the Mark study I found a commentary that quickly became my favorite. It is part of the NIV Application Commentary series published by Zondervan. The Mark commentary was written by New Testament scholar David E. Garland. It was published back in 1996 but the work still remains widely relevant. The scholarly level of the work is on point but it is Garland’s savage and witty writing style that I love. His ability to turn a phrase and be thought provoking at the same time, is wonderful. It is as if a ninja and a pirate had a child and that child when too seminary. There was so much material I left out I thought I would give you a taste of his pen. Below are a few choice quotes from the opening chapters of Mark on Discipleship. Below Garland writes on the call of disciples from chapter one highlighting the radical nature of discipleship in Mark.
“Unlike John the Baptizer, Jesus does not wait for people to come to him at some chosen site. He takes the initiative by seeking out followers with the command, “You! Come, follow me!” He does not put up a sign-up sheet (like church softball) asking for volunteers (“Messiah: Interested in a few good men and women”) or post office hours when he will be available to discuss the kingdom of God with those who might be curious. The disciples also do not join him as a pupil might select a rabbi to learn the law and absorb his religious wisdom. Jesus selects his disciples, not vice versa (1:16–20; 2:14; 3:13–14, “those he wanted”). One can conclude from this that becoming a disciple of Jesus is more of a gift than an achievement.” (p.83-84)
“The call and the instant response of these fishermen reveal something of what discipleship to Jesus entails and should shatter our comfortable world of middle-class discipleship. Disciples are not those who simply fill pews at worship, fill out pledge cards, attend an occasional Bible study, and offer to help out in the work of the church now and then. They are not merely eavesdroppers and onlookers. When one is hooked by Jesus, one’s whole life and purpose in life are transformed.”(p.84)
“Discipleship in Mark is not part-time volunteer work on one’s own terms and convenience. One must be prepared to leave everything to follow him. Simon and Andrew turn from their nets; James and John turn from their father and their boat…They had to leave the securities, even their livelihoods, no matter how meager or substantial they were, for something new and unpredictable. The call to discipleship comes as an unreasonable, scandalous demand. It seems too risky, and for those who respond, too reckless. These first disciples are not given time even to transfer whatever equity they have or to put it in trust. Few would make the radical commitment these first disciples made, and most would hope that Jesus might offer a less rigorous category of auxiliary discipleship, which would promise the same rewards while allowing one to continue the pursuit of money and success. “(p.84)
Discipleship in Mark is not about mastering theoretical ideas; it is about mission, a common mission with Jesus (6:7, 30). The disciples in Mark learn on the way with Jesus what discipleship entails. It is on the way that they encounter the power of his miracles and that they learn about suffering (8:27; 9:33–34; 10:32). They are going to be fishers of people, who will be sent out on mission (6:7–13). Just as they cannot drop a sign into the lake announcing “Fish wanted! Please enter net!” and expect much success, so it is with humans. They may not retreat to the safety of the harbor but must go on a voyage into the deep and turbulent waters and cast their nets widely.”(p.86)
“In 1:35–37, the disciples appear more interested in action than prayer. Here Jesus is shown praying before going into action. Busy ministers probably can easily identify with Jesus here. The demands of ministry and church members frequently interrupt study and prayer, and they are tempted to spring into action before preparing their hearts and minds before God. The worst thing that can happen is for them to be temporarily successful because they can delude themselves into thinking that prayer and study are dispensable extras in ministry. The same can be said for the busy parent desperately trying to keep up with hectic family schedules..” (p.86)
From, David E. Garland, Mark. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
.
I recently had a conversation with an old friend in which we discussed the idea of divine healing. I was surprised at how immediate and negative his response. I asked myself if next time, I need to give a trigger warning before I talk about healing. My experience hints of a larger problem in the church. In most of the evangelical and mainline churches the idea of healing comes with a negative attitude about the subject. Even if those you speak with have not thought about it in decades. So Do we need safe spaces in the church where no one will bring up God’s power to heal or is the church that safe space? I'm joking a bit but Many people today do not believe that miraculous healing is possible. Many more don’t know what they believe but they know they don’t like it.
This phenomenon has been studied by Christian scholars. Morton T. Kelsey, an Episcopal priest, and Christian psychologist, studied the historical roots of the church’s present negative attitude toward healing. [1] The question he sought to answer was why the church today has a negative attitude towards something found all over the Bible. He does this by surveying four arguments in church history on healing that has produced a fundamental resistance to believing God heals today.
In the study Kelsey builds off a principle in social psychology. The principle states that public arguments against ‘X’ can over time form negative attitudes towards ‘x’ and those attitudes will remain even after the arguments are disproven. Kelsey shows how four historic arguments for ‘why God does not heal’ has, over time, formed a negative attitude towards healing in the church today.
To be clear these points are not a list of hindrances to personal healing but anyone of these points could keep someone from seeking prayer for healing. Nor am I putting forth the ides that God heals everyone if we have enough faith and pray.
I have followed the historical progression without much discussion. In later blogs we will look into the individuals arguments and assess there veracity. In this blog, I just wanted to introduce you to these arguments.
Kelsey’s four arguments
1. Philosophical argument
The first view began as a philosophical argument based on the common Greek division of reality into the material and spiritual. Religion is seen as otherworldly, primary concerned with saving souls for Heaven. Thus religion has nothing to do with someone’s physical health. On the other side, there are those who believe that only scientific medical means can affect significant healing. It is reasoned that sense medicine is for the body; religion is for the soul, it is best to keep them separated. Any attempt to mix the two ends of in failure, often breeding superstition and fraud. In this view, the minister role is to maintain the separation and teach the wisdom of staying far away from such people and practices.
2. Theological argument
The second view holds that God is sovereign and sickness is his tool. Since God controls all sickness and sends it as a strong rebuke for sin. Sick persons ought to learn from their infirmities. The minister only role is to exhort confession of sin or help the individual to grow in faith through the suffering.
3. The biblical argument
This view makes an exegetical argument that the more miraculous gifts died out in the first century. It is prevalent among groups that cherish the truthfulness of the New Testament and a large portion of the Gospels and Acts describe miracles performed by Jesus and his apostles. Those stories are understood to teach that God granted to the early church a special ability to demonstrate his power in an unusual way, to help the church get started, and to authenticate the apostles. After that time those manifestations of power died out. This view first became prevalent during the reformation. Due to the catholic claims of miracles as proof that God approved of their doctrine and practices. The Reformers concluded that the gift of healing in the New Testament served only a temporary purpose. The minister’s only role is expound scripture to prepare the sick for suffering and pastor those who are enduring sickness with care and compassion.
4. The Anti-supernaturalist argument
The last view rejects the biblical worldview entirely. This view is rooted in post-enlightenment materialism. It assumes that the idea of supernatural beings intervening in the world is a fiction. The New Testament miracle accounts are dismissed as legends aimed at magnifying Jesus. This view regards contemporary healing miracles to be impossible because they violate the laws of nature.
Adherants understand humanity has progressed beyond such archaic ways of thinking yet religion is seen to still hold an important function in society. In this view, the minister role is to help facilitate meaning making through rituals and the retelling of sacred myths.
Ideas have consequences
In his conclusion he ties it all together by showing how the modern negative attitude stems from the way these ideas have shaped our view of the world. Kelsay summarizes the influence of the four views:
“Certainly most Christian thinking, both Catholic and Protestant, has been swept clean of any idea of Christian healing. On the one hand the successes of medicine have made it unnecessary, and on the other, modern theology has made any belief in it untenable. First of all, the church had accepted the necessity of dealing with the natural world on its own natural, material terms. Then there has been an acceptance of sickness as a part of the world, put there by God. Dispensationalism has found a way to divide this world so that healing, once seen as one of the greatest divine gifts, no longer seems needed or even wholesome. Finally, most modern theology has made it clear in ample reasoning why it did not happen at all.” [2]
Kelsey’s thesis about the historic roots of anti-healing sentiment checks out. Each argument builds on the next to shape christian attitudes about healing today. These attitudes have become entrenched in modern Christian culture especially in the West. While their influence often goes unspoken, occasionally you can hear them in our conversations about sickness. Here are a few example:
If Jesus is the model for the church’s ministry, we see one who is confident in the power of God, who touches the unclean and restores the banished to his community and the sick to a meaningful role of service. The church should follow our Lord. While affirming the necessary and importance of medicine.
As someone in the evangelical space, I have to ask; Why is the healing ministry of the church talked about in hushed tones? Why is Wednesday night prayer meeting more a time for gossip than for prayer? Why does no one feel the need to first stop by the church before going to the doctor? When a Christian is sick, why is prayer a last resort and not our first action? All such questions are often more complex than they appear. What Kelsey makes clear are the effects of these arguments. Over time they have incurred a historical momentum and now collectively they promote a negative view towards healing in the church. As stated above, historical arguments for "why God does not heal any more", have over time, formed a general negative attitude towards ‘healing’ in the church and that attitude have remained even after the arguments have been forgotten or disproven.[3]
Ideas have consequences and effect more than we think they do. Don’t let the negativity around you, influence how you relate to the rest of the body of Christ. Conflating your attitude towards an ideas with your approach towards a person is dangerous.
So even if you hold number 3 to be the ‘gospel truth’. If you treat those who disagree with you with the same negative attitude you have for their idea is not the way. It does not reflect Christian unity. Whether the negative expression is avoiding them like they have a memetic virus or approaching them in a condescending manor. Such behaviors are the hallmarks of spiritual elitist. "Those people," don’t have a spiritual plague nor are they gullible, ignorant plebs.[4]
In my opinion, these four specters have become the shadowy doubts lingering in the back of the church, crouched in the corners encouraging fear, promoting a negative attitude towards healing, and sewing doubt and discord among men of good faith.
In upcoming blogs, I will look at each point in more detail, assessing the veracity of each argument.
Footnote
[1] While I would not affirm all of Kelsey’s work, His assessment of the negative attitudes towards healing in the church is well known and widely cited by scholars like David Garland. Two works were used for this study, Morton T. Kelsey, The Healing Ministry within the Church, Journal of Religion and Health, (1970); and Morton T. Kelsey, Psychology, Medicine & Christian Healing (1988)
[2] Morton T. Kelsey, Psychology, Medicine & Christian Healing: A Revised and Expanded Edition of Healing & Christianity (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). 24.
[3] This is one reasons, Christian’s should never define themselves by what they are against( ie. By a negative).
[4] Same dynamic applies to those who respond to such negative attitudes with just as much negativity. A negative plus an negative is not a positive. It’s just double the negativity. So the same can be said of those who respond with spiritual pride over believing in divine healing. They can be just as elitist.
One of the best explanations of Repentance I have ever read was by J.I. Packer. I have quoted it in full below. The excerpt is from Rediscovering Holiness by J.I. Packer, published by Regal Books, 2009. The except comes from chapter five.
What is repentance?
What does it mean to repent? The term is a personal and relational one. It signifies going back on what one was doing before, and renouncing the misbehavior by which one's life or one's relationship was being harmed. In the Bible, repentance is a theological term, pointing to an abandonment of those courses of action in which one defied God by embracing what he dislikes and forbids. The Hebrew word for repenting signifies turning, or returning. The corresponding Greek word carries the sense of changing one's mind so that one changes one's ways too. Repentance means altering one's habits of thought, one's attitudes, outlook, policy, direction, and behavior, just as fully as is needed to get one's life out of the wrong shape and into the right one. Repentance is in truth a spiritual revolution. This, now, and nothing less than this, is the human reality that we are to explore.
Repenting in the full sense of the word–actually changing in the way described–is only possible for Christians, believers who have been set free from sin's dominion and made alive to God. Repenting in this sense is a fruit of faith, and as such a gift of God (cf. Acts 11:18). The process can be alliteratively analyzed under the following headings:
1. Realistic recognition that one has disobeyed and failed God, doing wrong instead of doing right. This sounds easier than it actually is. T.S. Eliot spoke the truth when he observed: "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." There is nothing like a shadowy sense of guilt in the heart to make us passionately play the game of pretending something never happened or rationalizing to ourselves action that was morally flawed. So, after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and compounded it with murder, he evidently told himself that it was simply a matter of royal prerogative and, therefore nothing to do with his spiritual life. So he put it out of his mind, until Nathan's “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7) made him realize, at last, that he had offended God. This awareness was, and is, the seed bed where repentance grows. It does not grow elsewhere. True repentance only begins when one passes out of what the Bible sees as self-deception (cf. James 1:22, 26; 1John 1:8) and modern counselors call denial, into what the Bible calls conviction of sin (cf. John 16:8).
2. Regretful remorse at the dishonor one has done to the God one is learning to love and wanting to serve. This is the mark of the contrite heart (cf. Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 57:15). The Middle Ages drew a useful distinction between attrition and contrition (regret for sin prompted by fear for oneself and by love for God respectively; the latter leading to true repentance while the former fails to do so). The believer feels, not just attrition, but contrition, as did David (see Psalm 51:1-4, 15-17). Contrite remorse, springing from the sense of having outraged God's goodness and love, is pictured and modeled in Jesus' story of the prodigal's return to his father (Luke 15:17-20).
3. Reverent requesting of God's pardon, cleansing of conscience, and help to not lapse in the same way again. A classic example of such requesting appears in David's prayer of penitence (see Psalm 51:7-12). The repentance of believers always, and necessarily, includes the exercise of faith in God for these restorative blessings. Jesus himself teaches God's children to pray “forgive us our sins... and lead us not into temptation” (Luke 11:4).
4. Resolute renunciation of the sins in question, with deliberate thought as to how to keep clear of them and live right for the future. When John the Baptist told Israel's official religious elite: "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matthew 3:8), he was calling on them to change direction in this way.
5. Requisite restitution to any who have suffered material loss through one's wrongdoing. Restitution in these circumstances was required by the Old Testament law. When Zacchaeus, the renegade Jewish taxman, became Jesus' disciple, he committed himself to make fourfold retribution for each act of extortion, apparently on the model of Moses' requirement of four sheep for everyone stolen and disposed of (Exodus 22:1; Exodus 22:2-14; Leviticus 6:4; Numbers 5:7). An alternative alliteration (as if one were not enough!) would be:
1. discerning the perversity, folly, and guilt of what one has done;
2. desiring to find forgiveness, abandon the sin, and live a God-pleasing life from now on;
3. deciding to ask for forgiveness and power to change;
4. dealing with God accordingly;
5. demonstrating, whether by testimony and confession or by changed behavior or by both together, that one has left one's sin behind.
Such is the repentance – not just the initial repentance of the adult convert, but the recurring repentance of the adult disciple – that is our present theme.
.
Today definitions are assumed rather than investigated. Yet we live and "define" our lives by them. A definition in need of investigation is repentance. A good way to get at defining such important and common terms is by first explaining what it is not. So let us take a moment to investigate the contrast between Penance and Repentance.
The difference between Penance and Repentance is unclear for many. It's a distinction we desperately need to get clear. There are many Christians who are convinced – based on their despair, regret, and self-loathing – that they are repentant. But in reality, they are not repenting at all. Here is a quote from a little known book on repentance I read years back that helped me see the difference.
Penance… is a religious attitude deeply rooted in the human heart which prompts people to attempt to pay for their own sins by good works and sufferings. Self-justification is the goal of this effort. In practice this means that humanity always has one more scheme for getting things right with God and their conscience. Sinners doing penance always say in their hearts, “Give me one more day, a new religious duty, another program, another set of human relationships or a better education, and then things will come right-side up.
They are preparationists – that is, sinners who are forever getting ready for grace. They want to make themselves worthy of grace so that God will reach out to them once this work of preparation is completed… But they do not know that this is a terrible insult to God and His grace. In their pride they are attempting the impossible… if we are grafted into Christ, if we are rooted in Christ, then we can grow in grace. But we will never have the power to grow into grace as a work of moral reformation.
Therefore, anyone doing penance is sadly mistaken. Things cannot come right for such people. They cannot pay for their sins, because they poison all the best gifts of God. Send them to church and Christian schools for a lifetime and they will never come to know rightly a single thing about the living God and his mercy in Christ. For in their heart of hearts, they are proud – infinitely proud – perhaps without having the slightest idea that this is their basic problem. Having but themselves as the ground of their hope, they will not see the glory of Christ until the Spirit grants them “repentance to life,” which included a genuine turning from penance. In brief, they must repent of their penances.
This matter is very tricky. Self-deception goes right along with self-trust and self-justification (Jer 17:9). You may say, “But you don’t know how earnestly I pray for God’s help. I have shed many tears over my sins.” But friend, this cannot work, because at bottom you are still asking God to baptize your sin – to Christianize an essentially lustful heart by making you a little less nervous and a little more patient. The Heavenly Father, however, does not hear your prayers, because you are in reality asking Him for help so that you can continue to live a life which is independent of God....What these people seek from God is enough grace to be strong in themselves. They do not need or want a constant flow of water from heaven.
…The repentant person repudiates this whole process with its self-justification and pretense. For truly repentant sinners have discovered, through the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, that all their doing is full of sin. Their doing is the source of their wretched emptiness, their black depression and their self-despising. But now they have come undone. They turn from their sinful doing and trust in what Christ has done. This is the essence of repentance. [1]
Key Bible Facts about Repentance
Repentance is a gift of God (2 Tim 2:25, Acts 5:31). In this aspect, Repentance is an inward surrender empowered/enabled by God. In this way, "Repentance has nothing to do with what man has done. Rather it is man’s coming undone in respect to all human righteousness, followed by his going outside himself in faith to Christ alone for salvation.”[2]
Repentance is also the same as turning to God and returning to God (Acts 26:20 Acts 3:19). Here is why it is often thought of as the other side of faith. Saving faith seeks after the object of faith. Saving faith seeks after God and repentance is the act of calling your sin what it is turning from it. SO if faith is turning to God repentance is turning from sin.
Taken together we have the definition of conversion
Repentance is the grace to change your mind (basic disposition) about Your unbelief, mistrust, and rebellion, against God and turn from your sin and in faith turning to God in reliance on his Grace and forgiveness in Christ. (PS. I wrote this in such a way that both Calvinist and Arminians can affirm it)
So Repentance is bigger than saying you’re sorry but it’s never less than that. We have to remember we are not to make just converts but we are call to make disciples, people to follow Jesus. So repentance is more surrender then a choice to sign up for church softball. It has an initial and a continual aspect for the Christian life is a life of follow daily. It initially begins by owning your sin before God acknowledging the punishment you deserve and casting yourself one God’s mercy. It continues on as a lifestyle of repentance. For a short simple definition that includes both the initial and continuing aspect of repentance. I humbly suggest this one.
Dawson’s definition:
Repentance is giving all you know of yourself to all you know of Jesus.
The definition above is easy to explain to a new believer while not watering down the ongoing nature of repentance. It’s aim is to help the new believer to engage in initial repentance with the full gravity that moment deserves and encourage a continual response to the gospel. As they learn more of Jesus in the gospel, they see who they are by way of contrast and as they learn more of who they are, they can give more of themselves to Jesus. Rinse, Repeat (See Calvin institutes 1:1).
Our approach to daily repentance
Daily repentance is not a burden for God’s children! Rather, it is good news. It’s just not easy:
Be encouraged then, fellow believer. In calling you to daily repentance, the Lord Jesus is not simply giving you good advice. He is saying, ‘If you are a child of mine, you must continue to repent.’ He does not say to reform your human nature inherited from Adam. Instead, He says to ‘put to death your members which are on the earth’ (Colossians 3:5). And dying is not easy. Nor…does it all happen at one’s conversion.
Now there is grand encouragement here. The putting to death of the flesh—ongoing repentance—is not something reserved for the select few. For repentance, in the larger use of the New Testament word, includes trust in Christ which unities the believer to the Lord in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:1-11; Colossians 2:9-12, 3:1-4).
So to be in Christ is to be in possession of the power to put to death the lusts of the flesh (Colossians 3:5), to put off vicious habits like uncontrolled anger, slander and lying (Colossians 3:8-9), and to put on the qualities of love, kindness, meekness and patience which identify a person as one of the elect of God (Colossians 3:12-17). [3]
Conclusion: In living a lifestyle of repentance we are to pursue ongoing repentance as a child of the king, not as an orphan seeking approval from God and acceptance into the family.
Footnotes
[1] John Miller, Repentance, (Fort Washington, PA: CLC Publications, 2009). p. 17-20.
[2] John Miller, Repentance, (Fort Washington, PA: CLC Publications, 2009). p. 63.
[3] John Miller, Repentance, (Fort Washington, PA: CLC Publications, 2009). p. 37
The story of John Mark scattered through a handful of verses in the New Testament is actually a beautiful picture of failure and restoration. In this brief biographical sketch I outline his story using five pictures, drawn from the New Testament evidence. Mark story shows us how God can use even the unassuming and unimpressive individuals for his purposes. Lets take a moment to look at five pictures of Mark.
1. A Church kid.
2. A Gifted Helper
3. A Failed Missionary
4. A Tested and True Minister
5. A great storyteller.
In the final analysis, Two observations highlight God at work in Mark's life to make him into a Gospel author. First, God was at work making Mark's life experience gospel shaped. God's providential hand is evident from his youth. Mark was a church kid. He had seen the power and suffering that the gospel demands. Yet he was a church kid who couldn't cut it when things got real. God was not caught off guard by Mark's departure. Like a good Father, God had made provision for his failure and discipleship for his immaturity. Through the rest of Mark's journey God taught him the value of weakness and the honor of service. He was a man touched by personal failure but not destroyed by it. A man who learned early that kings and ordinary men alike, have a cross to carry in following Jesus. A man who worked diligently in obscurity and found helping others fulfilling and fruitful for God's mission. In the end, his journey was providentially overseen by God to shape selfless-gospel-service into the reflexes of his character.
Second, God was at work making Mark's life gospel saturated. We see this in God's educational provision in the people around him. Mark's mama likely taught him the gospel from an early age. Also Mark, the natural storyteller, was trained by the best. Just let this sink in, Mark was taught theology by Paul, discipled to maturity by Barnabas and got his PHD in ‘JESUS’ from Peter. Now that is a resume!
Mark's life was overseen by God to make him into the kind of man that could shape without distortion and organize without ego, the witness of another. God transformed him into a humble pen to write another man's story. His mark on history was never about himself, but that kind sounds like something Mark would do, because that's the kind of man God made Mark to be.
John Mark (as His mama would say) was one of the most pivotal figures in the New Testament era yet Mark was never the man upfront in the spotlight. John Mark did the thankless task but without his willingness the New Testament would be very different. In writing the first gospel he defined the genre and inspired others to do the same. Without him we might not have a Gospel of Matthew or a Gospel of Luke. We definitely would not have them in the form we have today. Mark's exploits may have been forgotten but his pen was touched by God and His words will never pass away.
We are back looking at some of the more provocative thoughts from David Garland's commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Garland in discussing Jesus’ authority contrasts Jesus' response to his authoritative teaching and the obsession with spiritual authority in church leadership notes a common disconnect. First, Garland points out that in Mark Jesus avoided publicity but never people.
“Jesus’ concern to avoid publicity should give us pause. Unlike modern politicians and pop stars, whose survival depends on their remaining in the public eye, Jesus does not hustle to increase his name recognition. In our day, the miracles might make the headlines for a few weeks, but then interest would probably flag as people hanker after something new and more sensational. Jesus’ mission is not to provide sound bites and fresh sensations for the eleven o’clock news each night. He is not after personal glory that will deflect credit from God (see 2:12; 5:19; 10:18). He wants to avoid the adoration of a crowd that is without understanding and personal commitment….”(p.83)
In the opening scene of chapter one we see a theme emerges that remains for the whole of the book. Right out of the gate Jesus displays his miraculous power. The crowd marvels at his authoritative teaching. The theme of Jesus’ authority is a key theme for Mark. Garland notes a few examples from Mark's opening chapters (taken from page 87)
Through the rest of chapter one, Jesus continues to show his authority in powerful ways. Her heals Peter’s mother-in-law, a leper, and a paralyzed man. These events show not just his authority but also his compassion and willingness to be Near to the hurting and broken. It make clear that Jesus is not an inaccessible authority. Jesus is clearly a compassionate accessible healer. Garland makes observation on modern leadership.
“Many today in Christian leadership crave for the same thing to be said of them as was said about Jesus—he or she speaks with authority. They aspire to winning a pliant crowd of devoted followers who bow to their every word. Recent history reminds us how religious leaders can stake a claim to authority and hoodwink the credulous, distraught, and disenfranchised. It is easy for all but a handful to recognize the crackpots who tragically brainwash their followers with their authoritarian ranting and raving, arm them to the teeth, and engage in sexual promiscuity. But what about those who would speak authoritatively within more traditional churches and denominations? They announce: “This is my unanimous decision. I know this is the will of God. Is there any discussion?”(p.87)
Garland then turns to makes application to this common predicament by way of a few questions to evaluate leaders. Questions I find to rather useful and insightful. Garland states: (I've adapted the quote into a list)
To evaluate religious leaders today, we must judge them by the standard of Jesus.
- Do they share his aversion to publicity and acclaim?
- Do they want to receive credit for all that happens?
- Are they primarily interested in a power grab, in building empires for themselves, and in serving their own needs?
- Do they truly speak in the name of the Lord from sincere motives?
- Are they accessible to those in need, not just the wealthy and influential but those from the margins of society? (p.87)
One concluding note on using these questions. They may be more helpful as a self diagnostic for leaders to conduct on themselves. Caution should be used in assessing others from a distance. It is always dangerous to make snap judgments about people especially leaders when it comes to their motives. We live in a culture that feeds on such judgements. Whole ministry platforms have been built on such judgments. Such questions help us when we are in a place that hearts can be discerned humbly and situations seen holistically. Otherwise we’re just being jerks, with a hand full of questions and often a name to make for ourselves. Essentially doing the exact same thing as the ones we point and scoff at are doing.
Note: All quotes from David E. Garland, Mark. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Page number after the quote.