Categories
Leading change Management New Testament Practical Theology

What does it mean to be as shrewd as snakes?

A key emphasis in the leadership and management literature is planning and preparation. Sometimes Christians worry about such "business practices." Why not just trust God?  Why not just operate in the world in a childlike fashion? Indeed, Jesus says we are to "become like little children" (Matt 18:3). Then again, Jesus himself certainly operated in rather subversive and surprising ways. He criticized religious officials. He did not answer the questions posed to him directly. He said not to throw one's peals before swine (Matt 7:6). He used dramatic symbolic gestures. He appeared in public but then also spend time with just a few of his disciples and also went off by himself. He knew what he was doing when he entered Jerusalem and was arrested. Jesus has served as an inspiration for Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. in their mass movements to bring societal change. When one considers this context of subversive, savvy leadership, it should be less surprising that Jesus says to be as "shrewd as snakes" (Matt 10:16).   

The Greek word for shrewd or cunning is φρόνιμος phronimos. It is also praised elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels and translated as "wise:" Matt 7:24; 24:25; 25:2, 4, 8, 9; Lk 12:42; 16:8. The context has to do being prepared. It reminds me of the Scout motto: Be prepared. 

Though this word is praised here in Matt 10:16, it is qualified with "innocent as doves" and that is crucial. Good preparation should not become scheming or expedience or cutting corners–doing whatever it takes to get something done regardless if it is right. We are to think ahead and anticipate with might happen. But we are not to manipulate (trick) and deceive. We should be appropriately cunning, shrewd, wise, prepared, and proactive; but we as Christians should also absolutely be people of integrity ("innocent"). If people were to see what occurs behind closed doors via a hidden camera or our email messages or text messages, they would not see anything amiss. They would see us making plans, having meetings, considering what might happen, doing training, taking precautions. They would not be scandalized by our scheming to do things in underhanded, sketchy ways. 

Phronimos is also used by the apostle Paul (Rom 11:25; 12:16; 1 Cor 4:10; 10:15; 2 Cor 11:19). When he is using it pejoratively, the sense is that they are "conceited" in the sense of overly wise or overly confident in their own intellects or overly confident in their own plans. They think they have arrived and do not need to learn anything new. This too is a distortion of what it truly means to be shrewd, cunning, wise, and prepared. Someone is not wise if they are so confident they are wise that they are unteachable and arrogant. 

In summary, we are to be prepared but not scheming. And we are not to get so confident in our preparation that we think we have nothing else to learn. 

So, what does this mean in terms of application? We are to make careful plans but not trick the person we are trying to reach out to. We are to market our programs but we are not to lie about numbers or exaggerate our credentials. We are to appropriately save money but not to build up our barns with massive amounts of savings because we are living in fear. We are to take appropriate precautions about being among outsiders but being shrewd does not mean refusing to leave the comfort and security of home because it is safer. There are people who live utterly in fear for their lives, the lives of their children, and about their financial future. We should be prudent, sober, wise, cautious, prepared but we do not need to live in anxiety and fear. 

Proverbs 16:9 reads "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps." This verse puts preparation in perspective. There is sometimes an exaggerated application of this passage that suggests the more naive and less business-like, the more authentic and organic and spiritual. It is a zero sum game. The more humans beings plan, the more God is crowded out. But God's plan has always been to utilize human beings to do his work. Consider God's promise to Abraham to bless him that he might bless others. In this work, it is good for human beings to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. 

Categories
Ecclesiology Missional Models of the church New Testament

APEST and discussion about functions in the church

I commented on a post written by Bob Robinson and introduced by Scot McKnight at Scot's blog: Evaluating the APEST Theory of Church Flourishing (Bob Robinson)

I enjoyed all these comments. It seems like the first point about the application of Granville Sharp's Rule to Eph 4:11 has been disproven, which perhaps merits a retraction or correction in the post above.

I do not want to defend the prooftexting use of APEST but I think Bob is incorrect in saying: "Paul talks to Timothy and Titus about the importance of 'presbyteroi' ('elders') and 'episkopoi' ('bishops' or 'overseers.'). These were the key leaders of the early church." I would say in response that the significance of the apostle Paul and his delegate Timothy are assumed in the Pastoral Epistles and therefore it is not the case that the most significant role in the early church were overseers and elders. The most significant role was the apostles. See Gordon D. Fee, "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles," in Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 156. Gordon D. Fee, "Laos and Leadership Under the New Covenant," in Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 142.

There is good reason to retain the missionary emphasis of the "apostle." However, the lists of gifts, functions, and roles in the New Testament vary greatly and give little suggestion that individuals should try to discern their precise label so one should be very cautious with emphasizing titles, labels, self-assessments, etc.

The majority of the Christian tradition give little attention to APE roles. The so-called ecumenical consensus is described in the 1982 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry World Council of Churches document: three offices: overseers (bishops), elders (presbyters), and deacons (with apostle seen as morphing into bishop).

I think Gordon Fee is correct that overseers and deacons were sub-sets of the larger category: elders.

“The elders in the local churches seem to have been composed of both episkopoi (overseers) and diakonoi (deacons).”
Gordon D. Fee, "Laos and Leadership under the New Covenant," in Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 141.

“The term ‘elders’ is probably a covering term for both overseers and deacons.”
Gordon D. Fee, "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles," in Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 157.

There is also explicitly in the Reformed tradition a cessationist view of apostles, prophets, and evangelists. John Calvin writes, “According to this interpretation (which seems to me to be in agreement with both the words and opinion of Paul, those three functions [apostles, prophets, and evangelists in Eph 4:11] were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter III, Section 4, Beveridge translation, p. 1057).

My point is that the APE roles were dismissed for poor exegetical and Christendom reasons and should be recovered. The apostle is conversionary, cross-cultural and community-forming (John G. Flett, Apostolicity: The Ecumenical Question in World Christian Perspective (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 302-305, 318, 324).

Categories
Gospel New Testament Paul

Scot McKnight and Douglas Campbell discuss N.T. Wright’s understanding of Pauline soteriology

This continues to be a lively and important issue in New Testament studies. How do we understand the problem that the apostle Paul is trying to resolve with the gospel? 

Scot McKnight is a wonderful clear thinking evangelical. 

Douglas Campbell is in the thick of the debate trying to advocate for the "New Perspective" but more so the "Apocalyptic."

Both Scot and Douglas are trying to distinguish their positions from N.T. Wright. 

All three are people I like so this is interesting discussion!

 

 Andy Rowell Retweeted

Students take note. This is a good conversation between Scot McKnight and Douglas Campbell (in the comments section) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/10/28/nt-wright-paul-and-his-interpreters-the-cover/?ref_widget=related&ref_blog=jesuscreed&ref_post=is-the-old-better-nt-wright-responds …

4 retweets7 likes