Heartache
by Harry Banks
by Harry Banks, October 23, 2014
I haven’t been able to make myself read all through the daily reports of the Annual Council. I’ve been too heartbroken.
For the past several months I’ve been hanging out around John 17 — you know, the prayer of Jesus just after the last supper and before his crucifixion. As you may remember, it is the longest recorded prayer of Jesus we have. I don’t know why but it seems like I need to hang out there to see if I can catch the smell, the tension, the calm, the inspiration and the dread of the moment the great hinge of history was to turn.
For several weeks I’ve just been trying to comprehend verse 6, where he tells his Father, “I have manifested your name. . . ” What a strange phrase. . . What would I think if my neighbor came over to my house and said, “I have manifested your name to the new people that moved in next door”?
Huh… What?
What exactly do you do when you manifest? I don’t care if you use some of the other translated words, such as “reveal”; the questions still come. Do you talk? Do you act? Do you love? Do you hate? Do you touch? Do you avoid? Do you forgive? Do you rebuke?
When I told Larry, at the Sabbath morning Bible study at the In His Step Community Fellowship about my reflections on “manifest,” he said “manifest” would represent “all” that Christ did and taught and was.
OK, I agree that is probably a true statement but “all” is not very descriptive… Have you noticed that when you include “all,” you lose the detail?
It reminds me of the mother who was encouraging Johnny to eat his string beans. “Just think of all the starving children in China.” To which Johnny replied, “Name five.”
So I got to wondering… What would be the top 10 items that should be noted to give a sketch of what manifesting is about?
OK… so I’m not ready to commit to the list yet… But I’d be glad to hear what you think should make the list.
I have gotten far enough to realize that Jesus would be the only one who really could “manifest” a perfect, divine, Father. We might give witness to such a manifestation… And we might reflect… But “manifest”?… Yeah, I’m thinking that’s a little out of the reach of Mr. and Ms. Finite.
Then there is that “I have manifested your name.” How do you manifest a name? Which raises the question, what’s in a name? What makes up a name?
What are you actually manifesting when you manifest a “name”? Could this idea of “name” be much more multi-dimensional, multi-cultural, multi-multi, than our ideas of dictionaries, names, and definitions?
When I was working with database stuff I had tables and tables of data (2D). One of my applications had 1,200 tables; one table had 2.8 million records. One day I picked up an article on data mining where they talked about extracting information for what they called a data cube (3D). A couple of years later I was talking with my replacement, and he was describing even more dimensions and facets to data structures. Could that have any resemblance to this John 17 idea of a “name”? Sorry, I don’t have any answers here… and this is about as far as I have gotten on John 6… haven’t even touched the “ones you gave me” part.
So I haven’t gotten very far on my working through John 17… but there is a part coming up that keeps lurking in my peripheral awareness…
It’s the part where Jesus appeals to his Father to intervene on behalf of those “which thou gavest me” “that they may be one.”
Hmm… OK… so within 24 hours this contentious bunch of disloyal, uncomprehending ones “thou gavest me” (disciples) are going to encounter the crisis of their lives.
What is missing from this picture? There is no loyalty oath being passed around for signature. And even those who avow loyalty will fail miserably. There is no threat of job loss for anyone having a misconception of the GPS coordinates for heaven (remember Philip… just tell us and we will follow…). And after this crisis the disciples didn’t spend their time writing position papers getting ready for Pentecost.
I really do not mean to depreciate the prayerful careful work of our research teams and study task groups. But observe that Jesus seemed to think that he needed divine Father intervention to implement “that they may be one.” Perhaps as well researched and well positioned for full authority in governance as our finite efforts might be, we may still fail if we slip in our “abiding” (John 15).
Again, I don’t mean to find fault… I just mean to remind myself that if I’m ever to grow toward unity with my fellow sinners (whom Paul calls “saints”) it will have to come from a divine source. (I use the term “sinners” to highlight the necessity for divine redemptive intervention.)
Like I said at the beginning, I have been too brokenhearted to finish reading the daily accounts. It seems the jockeying for position, the covert and overt coercions, is so far removed from this prayer for unity at this point of the crisis of the universe.
The other prayer I find myself drawn to frequently is the prayer of Daniel in chapter 9. Why is it that it is a government statesman rather than a priest who prays, “We have sinned and committed iniquity…”?
Should we even expect our “church” leaders to be capable of enforcing unity? Historically prominent institutional leadership in scripture times seemed to fail frequently. After all, I’m human and very flawed. Why should I expect more from others?
I do believe I need to join Daniel in confessing “our” wickedness, our indifference, our corporate “gong show” (remember 1 Corinthians 13: without love we are like a sounding brass).
Some things I feel I need to confess…
Regardless of our views on “headship,” “creation,” “job threats,” how can we not hold Brother Ted up in prayer for the trials he and his family are enduring?
So the leadership ducks the responsibility of leading the way on some issues… (I didn’t say I hadn’t read any of the reports… I just said I hadn’t read all of the reports).
So just how long did it take the church to agree on Christ’s being “fully God and fully human”? Maybe 200, 250 years. Our entire denominational history isn’t even that old. “The nature of Christ” was just one of the basics, not some 28 of a future 150… (OK, so I’m just being contentious… The Council of Jerusalem reduced requirements… they didn’t expand them. I don’t know if anybody has noticed that.)
And about the threat of job loss… What kind of “faith” do I have if I’m intimidated by administrative bullying? One of the quotes shared at the passing of Bill Loveless… “And courage is always necessary.”
And since part of my career I’ve been a systems analyst, I learned that sometimes there can be a need to reframe issues and perspectives…
I’ve been wondering lately if part of our problem stems from the fact that our hybrid Methodist Episcopal system for General Conference, Union, and Conference administration (remember, it is congregational for the local church) and our idea of ordination (which is different from laying on of hands) are really Roman Catholic trappings we have not shaken off; and may contribute to the problem we seem to have resolving other issues. Could we be trying to solve them in the wrong framework? Sorry, just thought I’d ask?
So back to the heartache… How can a people who seem to be just as contentious as disciples at a last supper, just as disloyal, just as unknowing, ever find the love, forgiveness, encouragement, faith, patience, and courage to “be one” without the Father’s divine intervention? As I mentioned before, I do have a “Master of the Universe” certificate… but it was made very clear to me that there is no local or heavenly jurisdiction for a finite holder of such a certificate.
I’m thinking we all might need to join in the Daniel prayer club… Confess our corporate evil; and beg, “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake” (Daniel 9:19, KJV).
'Then there is that “I have manifested your name.” How do you manifest a name? Which raises the question, what’s in a name? What makes up a name?'
Consider how God describes Himself. When Moses asks God what His name is, God reply quite unhelpfully that He is simply ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (Ex. 3:14). God is so transcendent, He cannot be captured by any name.
That explanation would all have been quite infuriating if God hadn’t continued to explain, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’ (Ex. 3:15). So why God can’t be pinned down with a name, He can be known in relational terms.
In this way, God is both unbelievably transcendent but at the same time extremely intimate. The same God who is the Creator of all was also the personal deity of your ancestors.
That says a lot to me about what Christianity is (or should be) about. It isn't actually about right orthodoxy (knowing the right dogmas), orthopraxy (doing correct actions) or ritualism (doing the right rites and rituals). Christians instead believe the ultimate revelation about God is found in a person, Jesus Christ, who is God. Therefore, what ultimately matters is our relationship with that person, not a book, not a law, not a creed or statement of belief, not knowledge and not even good works (1 Cor. 13:1-13).
The Church isn't a building, a job title or an institution. It is people, and people are relational. The votes of potentates don't a Church make.
'I’ve been wondering lately if part of our problem stems from the fact that our hybrid Methodist Episcopal system for General Conference, Union, and Conference administration (remember, it is congregational for the local church) and our idea of ordination (which is different from laying on of hands) are really Roman Catholic trappings we have not shaken off; and may contribute to the problem we seem to have resolving other issues. Could we be trying to solve them in the wrong framework? Sorry, just thought I’d ask?'
So true. Ultimately we need to get back to our pioneers roots, which were actually based on the Millerite meta-denomination concept of movement. The SDA Church isn't (or shouldn't be) really a "church" at all, in institutional terms, but ratheer a "movement."
I like to think of the analogy between Russia and the International Commitern, during the Cold War. Whilst the two became synomymous they technically weren't. The former was a mere nation state, whilst the latter was technically an international movement.
Moreover, not all Russians were really communists, because most were simply born into it and grew up with it, paying lip-service. Similarly, not all communists were Russians either, because many of the most fervent communists were actually non-Russians – even citizens of arch-enemy America!
The SDA Church should be more like the International Commitern and less like Soviet Russia.
Harry,
Once again, you have both challenged and blessed me. Thank you!
I love your invitation to list what attributes we find in the name(s) of God. After all, a manifest is a listing or revealing of contents in a shipment so it is an applicable term when describing God.
I'll start with His incredible, amazing love that reaches even to me and lifts me up.
To that I'll add His power to transform me working from inside-out instead of outside-in. He's focused on changing my character because He knows my behaviors will follow instead of asking me to stop doing this or that.
Next I'll celebrate His willingness to actually live inside me as He promised, to empower and guide me and work through me to touch others with His love in the power of the Holy Spirit.
There are so many attributes of God we could list. For now I'll stop with those three.
Harry,
Thanks for another perceptive commentary on one of my own favorite Bible passages.
The verb manifest means to show or expose or declare or demonstrate.
In the culture of the Bible your name was meant to be a description of your character or personality.
So I would informally translate this phrase as "I have demonstrated your character".
Steve, and others. Is a profession of faith in the God of Abraham always credible?
I have been reminded by many a Muslim friend that they also worship the God of
Abraham.
And perhaps it is true that they do. So what of those Islamic extremists whose actions
show them to be anything but loving and generous? And how does that relate to
the professed Christians whose hateful actions have been so destructive? Does it
put all of them in the same boat as secular evil-doers? Is doing evil in the name of
God any better or worse than doing evil in the name of evil?
Let us all be more loving and more generous, and let us not stereotype and prejudge.
Warm wishes to all.
We show what kind of God we worship by the kind of life we live. And having once been made in the image of God, we have for thousands of years been re-constructing God in our own image.
I do believe that most Muslims worship the God of Abraham. And the Muslims that I personally know would not agree that the terrorists are worshiping the God of Abraham. The Quran teaches that it is unjust for a Muslim to kill another Believer. In order to justify their actions, the terrorists label as an Infidel anyone who does not believe exactly as they do. Of course Jews or Christians would never stoop so low 8-). (fyi – the Quran does not teach that devout Jews and Christians who also worship the God of Abraham, are Infidels. Judaism and Christianity are "grandfathered" in the Quran.)
One reason for the Incarnation was to reveal the true character of God to people who had re-constructed the character of God in their own image. When Jesus said to His Father "I have manifested your name" He was saying "I have demonstrated your charcter". In other words, he had accomplished that objective. And He was preparing to move-on to the next objective which was atoneing for the sins of all humans who ever lived or ever would live.
We have manifest on this web site those who think Jesus was irrelevant, those who endorse the Character of God that He manifested, those who further embrace the Atonement for Sin that He effected, and those who eagerly await His return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
We are invited to spiritually eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God. Some advocate abstinence, others eat but sparingly, some ingest a full course and still others a full banquest.
Why am I not heartbroken? Annoyed? Yes. Frustrated? Yes. But this is the way democratic institutions behave. By their corporate nature, they are primarily interested in self-preservation. They should not be confused with the faith communities and Spirit-driven movements which they ideally facilitate. Has it occurred to anyone that "leading" in the direction progressives would prefer might well jeopardize the institution that GC leaders have a fiduciary duty to protect? Why do progressives so often only support democracy when it yields the desired moral outcome?
Furthermore, what we see here is the "dark" side of multiculturalism. The anti-W.O. cultures, whose diversity and moral equality are extolled in the abstract by "enlightened" Westerners, don't always feel quite so warm, fuzzy, and bucolic when we encounter them up close and personal, or when they have power to affect our lives. What is actually somewhat remarkable is that, with Western Adventism being as numerically small a factor as it is, it has been able to temper and moderate the fundamentalist impulses of numerically far greater forces within the Church.
What we should find heartbreaking is that we, who support women in ministry, implicitly cede to the institutional Church's political leadership so much power over God's Spirit in the lives of women through our moral despair/hysteria. How was Jesus ministry hampered by the fact that he did not receive the imprimatur of the church panjandrums? How was Ellen White's ministry and witness enhanced by the fact that she was ordained? And even within the Western SDA Church today, how is the witness of women who have a passion to lead in ministry significantly impacted by the unfortunate optics of different credentials? Jesus was impactful because He taught as one having authority – not as the officially recognized, "ordained" church leaders.
The early Christian church seems to have changed its position on circumcision, not because of any theological considerations, but because of Paul's witness to the amazing work God was accomplishing through the Gentile believers. I submit that the best way to change the attitudes of those who oppose W.O. is evidence that the Holy Spirit acting in unique, remarkably transformative ways through women in ministry leadership.
I sure like the optics and idealism behind the W.O. movement. But I'm just not hearing or reading stories that suggest to me, beyond optics and idealism, that titles or words on a piece of paper are impeding the advancement of the Kingdom through the witness of SDA Christians in North America, Europe and Australia. I'm also not hearing creative suggestions to create practical equality within Western SDA ministry by "downward" mobility for male ministry leaders. Jesus modeled God's Kingdom by seeking downward mobility. Why do we insist that official endorsement of upward mobility for women is the only answer?
Nathan,
Upward vs. downward mobility is a curious question that, I think, avoids the far weightier issue of recognizing the giftedness the Holy Spirit puts and let them minister in whatever capacity God has intended. Service in the power of the Holy Spirit is a great equalizer because it puts us all on the same level directly under Him and church hierarchy becomes insignificant, if not meaningless.
Agreed. And just how does the Holy Spirit depend for its power on titles and institutionally conferred authority? Institutions, businesses, families,etc., need hierarchy. The necessity and existence of those hierarchies doesn't put people on different moral levels. Some in the Church believe that gender hierarchy differences imply gender hierarchy and different roles for men and women in church leadership. I don't happen to agree with them. But I am unwilling to concede that their objectionable construction of gender roles is a real obstacle to Holy Spirit power among women within Western Adventism.
You seem to be avoiding my third paragraph – above – wherein I offer some pretty powerful examples to question the handwringing obssession we seem to have with what the GC is going to do about this issue. In my opinion, we are ceding way too much power and importance to the institution. And you also ignore the possibility that equality on this issue may mean that male pastors should move "downward" rather than giving women in ministry a more "exalted" title and authority.
Nathan,
You listed very real issues in that paragraph. I avoided it for a personal reason. God has been reminding me recently that He wants me to stay focused on doing the tasks He has given me and where He has empowered me because that is where I can be effective. But if I focus on the other things then I get distracted and expend my energies fighting where I cannot be effective for Him.
The issue of Women's Ordination may never be settled in a way that causes complaint to be silenced. I am far more concerned that people discover the empowerment of the Holy Spirit so that they will minister His redeeming live in the ways that He directs regardless of shouted opinions or institutional policy to the contrary.
Late response Nate. Why fight for Gender Equality in SDA leadership? Because of girls in Ethiopia being circumcised, because of women in South America being beaten, because of girls in China being aborted. The whole cast of Male Headship has become a haven for ISIS, pontifical, LDS, and TV Televangelists to give a safe harbor to men abusing other women. "I'm the God-given boss of you inferiors" is the dark cave male abusers of women hide in. In the 1950's and 60's I was told, "you can't legislate morality, so don't try to force white's to accept blacks into their neighborhoods." Wrong. Once the law said Blacks and Whites have equal rights in every school, on every bus, in every neighborhood in the USA, it didn't stop racisim, but it did stop public and approved racism. And it did change minds that had previously accepted the status quo. So admitting that women are equal to men in spiritual gifts and religious ranks by the General Conference, won't stop all men from thinking God made them boss, but it will stop them publicly and openly claiming that God said this. It is not important to push this for Southeastern California, it is important to push this for large areas of the world where Adventist women remain a lower class. I want them to know at least on Sabbath, at least in some Divisions, women are free to be the equal or superior to the men of this world. I'm ashamed of we men, and I want to shame those of us who persist in this male idolatry and female persecution called Male Headship. I don't care as much if all the Divisions do it, but I do care that they don't forbid it. That they recognize male headship is cultural and fallen, not Biblical and Heavenly.
"Why do we insist that official endorsement of upward mobility for women is the only answer".
This of course isn't the only pressing issue for GC/15 to consider. i believe the Holy Spirit has a message for the SDA, "mankind is male and female", and God does not consider the woman to be of lesser value than the male, at this time and place, the female is equally able to manifest the love of God for His fallen creation. She is to labour for the Kingdom of God, in all areas of the church. The woman has attributes of love and caring,and delivering of needful assurance, of the LOVE of Christ.
The woman has a warmth and empathy of understanding that perhaps the male is incapable of expression. She has a long tenure of experience of all aspects of witnessing for her Saviour, in pastoring, and administration. In the end times she also will prophesy as will man.
In the SDA church, as are the mainline churches, women are fast becoming a large majority of the membership. Into their hands is the welfare and care of the children. Their motherly compassion extends to the whole congregation. They currently do most of the labour, while the men bask in the limelight. God knows the heart of mankind, and will use all who in faith step forward to serve.
Thankyou Harry for a thoughtful piece written with wit and light heartedness, yet very sobering. I have never understood why Daniel felt he should repent on behalf of his people, yet the past leaders of our church have argued that it is entirely unnecesary for us to repent of our churches past sins. Maybe our current leaders see it differently. I hope so. And yes, we should be praying for them, their work is not easy.
One of the most important priestly duties is intercession on behalf of the people you represent. Abraham and Job offered sacrifices on behalf of their families and their tribes, not just on their own behalf. Moses repented on behalf of Israel and offered to have his own name blotted-out along with theirs.
John 17 is one of the great intercessory prayers in the entire Bible.
Those who prefer to expend their energy on criticism of God's people would be well-served to spend quality time in intercessory prayer. There will always be no shortage of opportunites to find fault with everything about this life. Meanwhile the fervent prayer of a righteous man or woman availeth much.
Consider Daniel's situation. The temple in Jerusalem, the center of worship of the True God of Heaven, lay in ruin and the land once given to God's people was occupied by a heathen power. Daniel is asking God to forgive His people so they can be restored to the land and true worship restored. God's answer in the following chapters is about how true worship will be restored and the sovreignty of God made known.