On Temptation

by Matthew McEwen

“On re-reading this book ten years after I wrote it, I find its chief faults to be those two which I myself least easily forgive in the books of other men: needless obscurity, and uncharitable temper.” This was how C.S. Lewis began the afterword to the third edition of The Pilgrim’s Regress, his first novel following his conversion. Although the book is challenging and often difficult to understand, there is a scene in the story that is a vivid description of temptation. Before going to the passage describing temptation, here is how the subject of temptation is handled in Scripture:

In the Bible there are two different, but effective examples of responding to temptation. In Genesis chapter 39, Joseph runs out of the house when his master’s wife makes advances on him. He left the source of temptation as quickly as possible. But sometimes escape seems impossible and the temptation lingers. In those situations, the Gospels present us with a scene where Jesus responds to the ongoing temptation by quoting Scripture (Luke 4). As Psalm 119:11 says, “I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you” while James 4:7 says, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” When it comes to temptation, there is always a way out. “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” 1st Corinthians 10:13.

Here is how C.S. Lewis described the feeling of temptation from his story, The Pilgrim’s Regress:

They resumed their journey, John lagged a bit. I dreamed that the witch came to him walking softly in the marshy ground by the roadside and holding out the cup to him also: when he went faster she kept pace with him.

"I will not deceive you," she said. "You see there is no pretence. I am not trying to make you believe that this cup will take you to your Island. I am not saying it will quench your thirst for long. But taste it, none the less, for you are very thirsty."

But John walked forward in silence.

"It is true," said the witch, "that you can never tell when you have reached the point beyond which there is no return. But that cuts both ways. If you can never be certain that one more taste is safe, neither can you be certain that one more taste is fatal. But you can be certain that you are terribly thirsty."

But John continued as before.

"At least" said the witch, "have one more taste of it, before you abandon it for ever. This is a bad moment to choose resistance, when you are tired and miserable and have already listened to me too long. Taste this once, and I will leave you. I do not promise never to come back: but perhaps when I come again you will be strong and happy and well able to resist me -- not as you are now."

And John continued as before.

"Come," said the witch. "You are only wasting time. You know you will give in, in the end. Look ahead at the hard road and the grey sky. What other pleasure is there in sight?"

So she accompanied him for a long way, till the weariness of her importunity tempted him far more than any positive desire. But he forced his mind to other things and kept himself occupied for a mile or so by making the following verse….

When Lilith means to draw me
Within her secret bower,
She does not overawe me
With beauty's pomp and power
Nor, with angelic grace
Of courtesy, and the pace
Of gliding ships, come veiled at evening hour.
Eager, unmasked, she lingers
Heart-sick and hunger sore
With hot, dry, jewelled fingers
Stretched out, beside her door,
Offering with gnawing haste
Her cup, whereof who taste,
(She promises no better) thirst far more.
What moves me, then, to drink it?
--Her spells, which all around
So change the land, we think it
A great waste where a sound
Of wind like the tales twice told
Blusters, and cloud is rolled
Always above yet no rain falls to the ground.
Across drab iteration
Of bare hills, line on line
The long road's sinuation
Leads on. The witch's wine,
Though promising nothing, seems
In that land of no streams,
To promise the best -- the unrelished anodyne.


And by the time he had reached the word anodyne the witch was gone.

Sandwiched

by Greg Pulham

My wife and I are part of what some call “the sandwich generation” – one slice of bread is children we are still supporting; the other slice of bread is parents who require an increasing amount of our care. As the meat in this sandwich, we don’t always enjoy life in with the mayonnaise and mustard.

I am finding that I am also part of another “sandwich generation” – one that exists in the church.

One slice of bread in this sandwich is the traditional church of which I am lead pastor. With 125 years of ministry history, my church firmly belongs in the category which has been variously called “modern,” or “maintenance,” or most recently “attractional.” They are a wonderful, devoted group of believers, some of whom I’ve lived with as part this community for more than 25 years now as a lay person and a pastor.

The other slice of bread is the missional-incarnational impulse that is coming alive in me. For several years now (since I first heard the word “missional” from Gary Nelson at our 2004 Minister’s Conference), I have been trying to create (or awaken?) a missional identity in my church. It has been tremendously challenging work, and often frustrating. I have to confess that at times I have wanted to give up my traditional church and my traditional pastor’s job description to be part of something new, something cutting edge, something making a visible kingdom impact in the world.

I am part of a “sandwich generation” – pastors with burgeoning missional impulses who fill traditional pastoral roles in non-missional communities. The movement of the Spirit often conflicts with the expectations of the congregation. Pastoral ministry has never been easy, but I think for this generation, there are complex and thorny challenges.

Some in this sandwich generation will feel called to respond energetically to the missional-incarnational impulse. They will give up their traditional churches and pastoral roles and find genuine fulfilment in pursuit of God’s call in the hard work of birthing radical new missional communities. Others will remain, working hard and praying that the traditional churches they pastor will someday also be truly missional communities.

Alan Hirsch writes, “My great hope for the church is that in actual fact Apostolic Genius is not something that we have to impose on the church, as if it were something alien to us, but rather is something that already exists in us. It is us! It is our truest expression as Jesus’ people. And because this is so, we simply need to awaken and cultivate it.” (The Forgotten Ways, 244)

I share this hope, and so, while the urge to leave is sometimes strong, I believe that God wants me to stay behind to awaken and cultivate a missional-incarnational identity in the community of faith in which He has placed me. While the kingdom dream certainly needs visionary, entrepreneurial pastors who will blaze the trail of missional living, there is also a need for missionally-hearted pastors – pastors who would rather be trail blazing – to continue to work within traditional church communities to lead them out into missional-incarnational space.

Whichever road is taken will require sacrifice for God’s kingdom dream. I hope you will pray for this sandwich generation of pastors.

The Great Divorce and Plato

by Matthew McEwen

Books like Howard Snyder’s Salvation Means Creation Healed or Steven Bouma-Prediger’s For the Beauty of the Earth have done much to reframe a theology of the physical world, replacing a more common Platonic world view that considers matter and the stuff of earth to be worthless or even evil. Although C.S. Lewis is one of my favourite authors, I used to be concerned about his use of Plato in his writings. A clear example of this Platonic influence can be seen in his work, The Great Divorce. In that story, souls from hell are granted an excursion to the outskirts of heaven. What they left was a Gray town (with shops that sold the works of Aristotle), and what they came to was a place alive with colour. The crowd from hell, or the gray town, felt like ghosts and shadows once they arrive in a place that is described as being solid. A single blade of grass would not bend under the feet of the ghosts, and even water in the river nearby was solid enough for a ghost to walk on it.

According to The C.S. Lewis Reader’s Encyclopedia:

Lewis had a high regard for Plato, the great Greek Philosopher. In his final Narnia Chronicle (The Last Battle) Lewis had the professor say, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!” What Lewis admired most about Plato was his metaphysics. Plato believed that there are two real worlds, not one. There is the world of changing physical things that we apprehend by means of our senses, and there is the world of eternally true ideas that we apprehend by means of our minds. Plato was looking for stable things in a world of change; he found this stability in Being in contrast with becoming, in forms or ideas in contrast with matter or particulars, in the invisible and eternal in contrast with the visible and the temporal.

I found a blog with an article called “Unshakeable Reality” that considers this contrast between the shadow and solid reality in The Great Divorce with teaching from the Scripture. From that blog:

“Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:26-29). We dwell among “things that are being shaken,” but are receiving “a kingdom which cannot be shaken.” St. Paul does with shaking what Lewis does with solid. It is the less solid, the less stable, which can be shaken. Or, as St. Paul says, “the things that are made.” It is the things that are merely “created” that can be shaken. Only the uncreated remains. It is beyond understanding, but the promise of the fathers (and here in the Scriptures) is that in Christ we are to become “uncreated by grace.” God alone is “uncreated.” But by His grace, we become partakers of His uncreated life (which alone is unshakeable).

This blog made me re-think my understanding of what Lewis was trying to communicate in The Great Divorce. The contrast between shadow and solid reality in that story was not to reject or despise the created order or physical realm. The opposite is true. In the preface Lewis writes:

But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.

Creation is included in the description of the landscape of the Heavenly realm, including details such as grass, apples and a river with a waterfall. Near the end of the story there is a procession that came from a nearby forest, and at the centre of all the commotion was woman named Sarah Smith. She was a person of no importance on earth, but someone special in Heaven. In addition to angels in Saint Sarah’s procession, there were also children singing a song of beauty, and animals. Among the animals were dozens of cats, countless number of dogs, birds and horses. Confused, Lewis asks his spiritual mentor if this woman kept a zoo. His teacher answers, “Every beast and bird that came near her had its place in her love. In her they became themselves. And now the abundance of life she has in Christ from the Father flows over into them.” (Musician Phil Woodward has set this scene to music: http://www.ghostsandspirits.net/the-album/saint-sarah/). Far from denying or rejecting the importance of the created realm, The Great Divorce affirms the beauty of the earth and presents a picture of salvation as being creation healed.

http://glory2godforallthings.com/2012/07/10/unshakeable-reality/

Forgiving Ourselves?

by Beverly Kay

Over the summer months I have been wrestling with a concept that is very prevalent in current secular thinking, trying to see if it matches up with Biblical Truths regarding the power of forgiveness. The concept that I am grappling with is that of forgiving ourselves. As people in our world strive to deal with guilt or self-loathing, very often they are encouraged to not be so hard on themselves, after all being human means making mistakes. Nobody is perfect, so they are told to simply forgive themselves and move on. Somehow, this teaching just doesn’t sit right with me. It seems to smack of self justification. If I have the power to forgive and justify myself, then I don’t need a Saviour to pay my debt and to reconcile me with my Maker. As I have searched scripture there seems to be only two types of forgiveness mentioned.

The first is the forgiveness that comes from God Himself, made available to us through the atoning sacrifice of Christ Jesus our Lord. We receive this forgiveness when we agree with God about two things. First we must agree with God that our action or attitude is truly sinful, it has broken the law of God and it bares the weight of penalty. This is just as real in our lives as breaking a traffic law and having to pay the fine. If we lie, or steal, or covet, or walk in pride, etc. then we are guilty of sin. The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23) Secondly, we must agree with God that the penalty for our sin has been paid for, that the death of Christ on the cross is sufficient payment for our sin. It is in agreeing with God that we are forgiven, cleansed, made new because of the gift of grace offered to us in Christ Jesus. In receiving this gift of Grace we find freedom from guilt and condemnation that had been ours because of sin. That is the good news of the Gospel that Paul shares in Romans 8:1&2, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” We cannot short cut to forgiveness of self. We have no authority apart from Christ Jesus to be set free from the law of sin and death put in place by God in the garden.

The second form of forgiveness comes only after we have received the first. This is the authority in Christ Jesus to forgive others who have sinned against us. As children of God, through our faith in Christ Jesus (John 1:12), we are to become like our Heavenly Father (Ephesians 5:1&2). As we live out this life of love, we are called to be “kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” As God’s children we are to extend to others the same grace and mercy that we have received from our Father. We cannot absolve someone else of their sin, but we have the joy of refusing to hold their sins against them, extending to them love rather than seeking revenge or hating them in our hearts.

It is so easy to allow the subtle twisting of God’s truth by the world to enter into our thinking and our council of others. Let us strive to remain in alignment with the truth of scripture, and remember there is only One who has the power to forgive, and that is God Himself. It is only by His power at work in us that we have the authority to forgive others, and to revel in the joy that comes as we receive freedom from our sin through faith in the work of Christ Jesus on the cross!

Reflections on the Connecticut Tragedy

by Matthew McEwen

The tragedy in Connecticut has been described by many people using colourful words expressing disgust and horror, but situations like these expose the limitations of the English language. No words can truly define the horror, and words defy any search for an explanation. The limitation of words is also evident when you consider the incapability of offering comfort to those who grieve. What can you say?

Perhaps this is why Job’s friends did their best work in the early chapters of Job’s story, where they simply sat in silence with Job. Yet silence is uncomfortable and we feel the need to speak, to say something and fill the void. And much has been said and will continue to be said as the debates intensify.

My first thought when I heard this terrible news was to turn to Scripture and read from Matthew 2 and the rage of King Herod who gave orders to kill the boys in Bethlehem. This was also Bishop David Kendall’s reflection on his blog: http://fmcusa.org/davidkendall/2012/12/15/the-massacre-of-innocents/

The wonder at Christmas is that Jesus would enter into this dark and broken world, and with the season of advent (a word that means coming) we not only look back and remember the birth of a baby, but also look forward to His second coming. When Jesus comes again, He will judge the living and the dead and on that Glorious Day, God will make all things new. On that Day there will be no more mourning, or death, or crying, or sickness or pain. And so the prayer of the Church has been and will continue to be “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus.”

Others speaking about this tragedy focus on the topic of gun control, but a deeper root to this issue is mental health. A resource document on mental health is an ongoing project for SCOD. The statistics show that 72% people would freely share the information that a family member has cancer, but when the issue is mental health the number drops to 50%. A conversation about mental health must take place to offer people hope, assistance and remove the stigma associated with these illnesses. (http://letstalk.bell.ca/en/perspective.php).

Another response to the tragedy that I have seen has been Christians who lament the public school’s hostile environment towards Christianity. I have seen people lament that “God need to be put back into public schools”, or that “God can't be in schools anymore because He is not welcome there.” I’ve heard it said that “He won't force His way in where He is not wanted.” In making that final statement, people will then refer to the Warner Sallman painting of Jesus knocking on the door and mention that there is no handle on the outside and imply that we have to open the door to let Jesus in. John 20:19, however, is clear that locked doors are no barrier to Jesus.

Here is where Wesleyan theology needs to speak up and be heard. Jesus cannot be evicted from school because He remains with the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized (Matthew 25:40). Even without the presence of Christians who are called to be salt and light in the world, the Holy Spirit is at work. Some parts of the Church family call it “Common Grace,” whereas we Wesleyans will speak of prevenient grace.
Prevenient grace “…is the grace that ‘comes before’ (pre-venio) we are conscious that God is seeking us out, using subtle, and not so subtle, nudges to awaken us to our true condition” (Runyon, 27). Before a person can enter into justification, there must be an awareness of sin for repentance to take place. This awakening is the work of the Holy Spirit in the act of prevenient grace. Therefore, “Christians are sent into the world knowing that the Spirit is preparing the way in the lives of those to whom they go…. If the Spirit is not intimidated by unbelief, should we be? Wesley’s ‘optimism of grace’ is a confidence grounded in the universal activity of God” (Runyon, 33-34).

The doctrine of prevenient grace means that God is at work in the world, and Christians have an opportunity to be a partner in the mission of God. Even without a single Christian in a public school that may be hostile towards Christianity, the Holy Spirit remains active in working in the lives of the students and teachers, preparing them for when they will encounter the next follower of Jesus. You can’t evict God, see Psalm 139 for more information.

The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today. Theodore Runyon, Abingdon Press, 1988.

On Partnering with Para-church Ministries: A Model for Discernment

When Jesus prays for us directly in John 17:21, He asks the Father that we as believers would be one just as the Father is one. Jesus asks the Father that we, the broader body of Christ, live in complete unity to let the world know that the Father has sent Jesus – to see God`s glory! Clearly it is in God’s interest that we partner with other Christians and work together.

John Wesley, in his sermon on the catholic spirit, cites 2 Kings 10:15, ‘if your heart is as my heart then give me your hand’. Thomas Oden explains that Wesley’s major thesis on the catholic spirit is that ‘being of one heart, even though not of one opinion, reaches beyond human antipathies and cultural differences’. People who are shaped and formed with divergent modes of thinking can still be united. Wesley recognizes that ‘how we think’ is formed by our circumstances and cultural experiences.

While Wesley was unquestionably committed to the essentials of classical Christianity, ‘he resisted the notion that they could be captured in a single unalterable linguistic form’. He urged followers to operate within the dictates of our own conscience. When seeking truth, confessional statements are limited. So Wesley raised questions that ask whether one has become ‘personally accountable to the core of Christian teaching.’ If believers are opening their hearts to the transforming work of God and open to that self-examination, then Wesley would say, ‘extend to me your hand’. In light of this Wesleyan ethos, we seek to live in that unity with Christian partners.

We also seek to be discerning in developing relationships that help us optimize partnerships for God’s glory. But, Scripture and experience also tell us that sometimes there is real wisdom in not partnering. In Acts 15:35-40 we see an example of such wisdom when two key leaders who had been working closely together, developed different visions about how to best move forward. Rather than feel they must stay together in the same locale, they saw that for the sake of the gospel, it would be better for them to not work so closely together. There is no implication of anything wrong in this realization. In fact, both ministries seemed to be optimized apart from each other.

Wise discernment often depends on asking the right questions. The following questions are intended to be a tool for churches and church leaders as they consider partnerships with para-church organizations and other Christian groups.

Confessional Compatibility
Is there anything within the organization’s doctrine or statement of faith that conflicts or contradicts historical orthodoxy?

Is there anything about their beliefs and emphases that contradicts our Free Methodist Articles of Religion
and our collective convictions about the Christian life (The Christian Life in the Manual)? Would an outsider think that our church believes or emphasizes things we do not if their first or only contact with us was through this group?

Discerning the Spirit

Does the mood &/or ethos of the organization complement ours?

Is there anything about this group/person that raises flags in those in your church known for having the gift of discernment?

Are there any concerns morally, ethically, financially, legally that plague the organization?

Even if there are concerns that are flagged, what elements/truths might be benefit your ministry – or at least need to be incorporated, even if you do not develop a formal relationship with them?

Would I be comfortable with my church or my personal identity being associated publicly with this ministry? I.e. How would I feel about a caption with the two names together on the front page of a local paper?

Is there a good chance that this group/person is so different from us that divergent visions/priorities may well raise questions and debates that will take everyone’s attention away from central Gospel priorities?

Is the leadership of my church prayerfully on board with this association?

Who has endorsed this organization or ministry publicly in their marketing materials?

Is there anything that makes me feel uncomfortable in working with this organization or association?

Seeking the wisdom of others (Prov 15:22)

Have I consulted with my peers in my network, accountability partner, LISTSERV or NLT to thoroughly reference the association or organization?

Who can I contact personally to further reference this ministry?

Objectives and outcome of partnership

What are the parameters, benchmarks or guidelines, we need to put in place for this association to best function

What long term benefit will this bring to our local church vision?

What long term benefit will this bring to the spiritual maturity/discipleship/sanctification of our church?

Free Methodists in Canada and Social Drinking

by Greg Pulham

There has been a great deal of conversation about what the Scriptures say about “social drinking.”  It is frequently a topic that arises when I teach our foundational course on FM polity.  Here is my take.

First, the Scriptures may indeed be read in such a way to allow for social consumption of alcohol.  But I’m quite sure it makes no prescription that we must or ought to drink socially. 

I think what the Scriptures say about this issue is well captured in the principle statement from para.630.2.6 of the Manual:

As Christians we believe that life is full, abundant, and free in Jesus Christ (John 8:35; 10:10). Therefore, we commit ourselves to be free from whatever damages, destroys, or distorts His life in us.

Following that statement of principle is a statement of how we, as FMs, think that principle ought to be applied. 

Because Christ admonishes us to love God with all our being and our neighbour as ourselves, we advocate abstaining from the use of alcoholic beverages (Mark 12:30-31). The abuse of alcohol, a legalized drug, is damaging to individuals, families, and society.  It is unpredictably addictive and its destructive effects cannot be fully measured.  Its abuse leaves a trail of broken marriages, family violence, crime, industrial loss, ill health, injury, and death. As concerned Christians, we advocate abstinence for the sake of health, family, and neighbours.  Moreover, we see the adverse social consequences as so pervasive that we seek by advocating abstinence to make a united social witness to the freedom Christ gives.

Clearly, “advocating abstinence” is the stated way in which we as FMs in Canada seek to handle this issue of social drinking. 

[I would remind that members of Conference and members of local churches have covenanted to live by these provisions of the Manual (see para.151.2 Requirements of Membership and para.161 The Questions for Membership #4).]

Here is my question:  How can I effectively advocate abstinence if I don’t abstain myself? 

How can I advocate for monogamy when I have multiple spouses at home?  How can I advocate for integrity if I don’t keep my promises?  How can I advocate for Jesus Christ if I bow down and worship idols?  It’s like saying, “Drinking is okay for me, but you ought not to do it.”  I’ve never found this to be a persuasive way to advocate. 

The Scriptures may well allow social drinking, but it certainly doesn’t command it.  For FMs in Canada, we’ve covenanted to advocate abstinence.  If we as a movement want to change how we apply the Biblical principles, then we need to re-articulate the statement “we advocate abstinence.”  I do not look forward to that discussion. 

Learning to Fail

Over the last year there seems to be more of a buzz on learning to fail. Two articles on this subject in the Globe and Mail caught my interest. One was back in April, written by a Business Correspondent and the other in August, highlighting Canadian writer, Paul Tough’s new book. 

Amanda Lang`s article in April titled, “Why we need to teach our kids how to fail” refers to Sports Canada`s decision to coordinate the efforts of 56 national sports bodies in a long term athlete development program to promote fun over winning. She summarizes from this material that the originators of this program say this is a necessary step since losing “makes kids feel bad.” The columnist is very critical of this program and argues how this philosophy plays out in Canadian culture. But for our purposes, she claims that “failure is a natural process of elimination that clears the path to success.”

Most of us have heard of Edison’s numerous attempts to make a light bulb. It is said that he was once interviewed by a reporter who asked if he felt like a failure after attempting 9,000 times. His response: “Now I know positively 9,000 ways that the light bulb will not work.’

Edison seemed to have subscribed to the same philosophy as Lang, as does Paul Tough. In the Globe and Mail interview which features Tough’s new book, How Children Succeed, he claims that what really matters is not IQ nor affluence, but the ability to fall down and get back up again.  He calls this grit: “resistance, persistence, perseverance, stick-to-it-iveness and passion.” By his description, grit could be called character. Wente, who summarizes Tough’s book, says that what Tough has learned “is that two kids of equal abilities can have wildly different outcomes.” The grit scale determines people`s capacity to stick with something despite setbacks.

A couple of thousand years ago, Paul said something similar. I love the way the NLT says it: “We can rejoice, too when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character….” It shouldn’t surprise us when we hear God’s eternal principles being echoed as new revelation to a new generation. It should remind us of God’s timeless relevance. Grit as Tough calls it, or character as Paul calls it, strengthens not just our effectiveness and success in life, but for those of us counting on God`s faithful love, “our confident hope…that will not lead to disappointment.”

When Helping Hurts

A book review by John Vlainic

 

Even though I remember thinking of myself as from a “poor” family when I was a child, I know that I, even then, was part of the “rich” of the earth.
 
  I am realizing that my formation to this point in life has rather poorly equipped me for serious obedience to the concern throughout scripture that God’s people share themselves and their resources with the poor. Sometimes, I have tried to be gracious about it, and said, “That’s something another part of Christ’s body does well.”  
 
As well, I have seen attempts at helping, which seemed, even to me, to likely be counterproductive in the long haul.
   
How good, then, to learn of a wonderful introduction to the matter which strikes me as:

• biblical (with a special focus on Christ as King and Christ’s Kingdom, and on the over-arching grand Story of the Bible)
• humble (the authors admits many of their own errors, and are gracious throughout); there is tremendous humility here!
• in touch with “systems” thinking  
• aware of how “culture” works in human life
• clearly “both/and” in tone
• nuanced (i.e. they do not pretend that issues are simpler than they are)

It is: Steve Corbett & Brian Fikkert, When Helping Hurts: How To Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor (Moody Publishers, 2009).

 

They blew many of my assumptions about ministry to the poor, the nature of poverty, and so much more right out of the water. The more I listened, the more I realized how little I know about this. I learned much about a host of kinds of paternalism well-meaning Christians like me engage in.

 

One of the ways in which the authors are most helpful is in unpacking the real dangers (and potentials) of the short term missions trip that is so popular these days. If you want to do short term missions without doing long-term harm, pick up this book. It will raise a host of new (and good) questions. This book is revolutionary in my thinking. I hope that time will tell that changes will have taken place in my living and serving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the Devil went down in Ephesus

by Dale Harris

I’ve been spending a fair bit of time in Acts these days, and feeling like it's a book I’ve read a dozen times but never seen before. One of the episodes I find particularly fascinating is the account of Paul’s visit to Ephesus.

If you recall: the Holy Spirit arrives in Ephesus and in its wake we see stuff happening that would make the best of Frank Peretti look like Casper the Friendly Ghost. The Seven Sons of Sceva are beat black and blue by a demon-possessed man (19:14); dabblers in the occult perform public burnings of their paraphernalia (19:19); the silversmiths of a pagan goddess incite the mobs to riot (19:28). I mean: the Gospel’s beating the bushes and the demons are scattering like so many startled sparrows.

But Frank Peretti aside—and this is a point that I’ve never seen Frank Peretti address, or Screwtape, or Dr. Faustus for that matter—whatever else they're about, the Ephesian exorcisms are about issuing God's challenge to the oppressive economic structures that promote systemic evil.

For instance: it’s an assumption on my part, but not an outrageous one, that the Seven Sons of Sceva have set themselves up as Exorcists for Hire, and this is why their interview with the devil goes so painfully wrong (the fact that Sceva is styling himself as a ‘chief priest’ in Ephesus is highly suspect). Bob Larson leaps to mind, here.

And this isn’t an assumption but just a plain reading of the text: the economic value of the books burned in Acts 19:19 works out to about 136 years wages (say 6 million dollars?). A lot of Ephesians have sunk a lot of money into occult junk over the years.

And most telling of all: the reason Demetrius and his colleagues start a riot is because they’ve seen the economic writing on the wall:  if people abandon Artemis for Jesus, they’ll no longer need the silver images that are their stock and trade. I don’t suppose a good racket has ever died without a fight, and this must have been a lucrative racket:  Ephesus, you understand, was home to the Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient World.

I’m pointing this all out because if you want to take the Book of Acts seriously, you can’t escape the conclusion that confronting the demonic is on the Church’s to-do list. But if I were to write a “theology of exorcisms” based on the Book of Acts, one of the first chapters, I think, would deal with oppressive economic structures, the “powers and principalities” that exploit and dehumanize people in ways that seem so normal to us—even necessary—but are best understood as “demonic.” And then I would try to draw lines between what’s happening in Acts 19 and the Church’s call to both name and provide alternatives to these ways of doing business. Economic systems are by nature spiritual, I’d say, and economic structures are demonic when they make money ultimate and people a means to an end.

And then I’d brace myself.

But I’d also point out that in Acts 16 we see the same thing happening. Paul performs an exorcism (16:18), freeing a girl from demonic possession. But it’s not just a demon that's being excised here.  It's also the economic exploitation this girl's been suffering at the hands of her pimps. Because when the men who made their living off her “prophetic utterances” find out that their “hope of profit is gone," Acts says, that’s when the metaphorical excrement hits the proverbial air-circulation device.

By Acts’ reckoning, it seems: helping the vulnerable escape economic exploitation—girls the sex trade, say—or children the sweatshop—or workers the tyranny of the bottom line—or shop-a-holics the clutches of Mastercard—by Acts reckoning, at least, these are all ministries of exorcism with the potential to raise hell.