Presence Ministry

Credibility is most certainly (and quickly) gained through physical presence. The old saying is quite true, quote it with me, “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.” As cliché as it is, it still holds true. In parenting, many parents have bought into the lie of quality time. This is sad, because what kids need (and are formed by) is quantity time. Time with a person is both formation and instructional. The only way to get to know a person is by spending time with them, and in a variety of settings and experiences. It is true in parenting as it is true in ministering.


The ministry of presence can speak more to a person than words. This is especially true in crisis and grief situations. Within the first few months of coming on staff at my church, the father of one of my teens suddenly died from a massive heart attack. I had very few words to offer to this teen for comfort. In fact, she really didn't need any more words. She needed to know I was there for her. I stayed with her and the family as much as possible (and as was appropriate for the situation).


Looking at the example of Jesus, the disciples spent almost all their time with Jesus. As disciples and under-studies, they knew the way to truly know the teacher was to commit to time with him. Even though they scattered during the crucifixion, the results speak for themselves when their fear and mourning turned to furious, faithful zeal after the resurrection. What they knew about Jesus was fueled by their faith.


Physical presence gains credibility because of what it says to the other. It effectively says, “I have no better place to be than here right now.” It conveys value and worth to the other by saying, “Being with you is well worth my time and effort.” It distinguishes the other by affirming them and saying, “You are important to me; you are loved.”


Our role as a shepherd, then, is one of solidarity with the people. This is different than being “one of them;” instead it is “one with them.” Our people need to see us around them, doing things with them, and being one present with them in the Spirit.

Study of the importance of barley in the Bible

Barley

Barley (se`orah) is one of the most important of the cereal grains in the Bible. It is also the hardiest of them all. In the Bible (as in modern times) the failure of this crop was a national disaster (Joel 1:11). The Israelites successfully practiced agriculture in Palestine, so they grew it as a primary food product. The land lent itself for barley growing and was described as "a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey" (Deuteronomy 8:8). Barley was and still is used as an ingredient for bread, second only to wheat. It was usually the food of horses, cattle, and/or donkeys (1 Kings 4:28). However, barley was frequently baked into a bread used for food for the poor, common people – especially in country districts (Judges 7:13; 2 Kings 4:42). It was also a valuable grain (as barley millet) that was useful for making malt, from which beer, ale, and whisky could be made.

This bread was the principal basis of food among the Hebrews. Meat, vegetables, and liquids served only to supplement the meal. As the chief food of the poor, this primitive bread was unleavened and was called "mazzot." The shape of the bread was commonly a round, circular loaf which would be conducive for traveling. It was with five barley loaves and two fish that Jesus fed the five thousand (John 6:8-13).

Barley bread is mentioned seldom in the Bible, especially when compared to the more refined wheat bread. Wheat bread was the superior product, but as barley bread was the food of the poor, wheat was not always affordable or available. As a result, the most commonly occurring form of bread was made from a mixture of both barley and wheat, especially the latter, “spelt” or "kussemet," being particularly used in special cases (Ezekiel 4:9). In ritual, barley flour seems to have been used exclusively for the meal Offering of Jealousy (Numbers 5:15).

Several varieties of barely were grown in the area of Palestine. It was sown in the autumn, after the "early rains." Later in the year, the harvest was a well-marked season, corresponding with the month of Nisan (April), the time of Passover. On the second day of Passover, the Hebrews offered a sheaf of barley as the first-fruits of the harvest of the year. Also, the unleavened nature of the bread made it able to be used during the Passover ritual as the “bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3).

Originally the ears of barley or wheat were simply roasted. However, in order to make barley bread, the earliest and most simple way of preparation was by crushing the grain. This consisted of pounding it in a mortar until it produced coarse flour. In order to obtain finer flour, the grain was often pulverized and ground between two stones in a mill. As far back as can be traced, the Israelites used a mill for preparing this finer flour. Furthermore, each household prepared its own flour. This helps to explain the prohibition against taking a hand mill in pledge from the poor (Deuteronomy 24:6). Consequently, the work of grinding was the task of the women, the female slaves (Isaiah 47:2; Matthew 24:41), and/or of captives. The women were also the ones who baked the bread.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that barley bread serves to represent the hardness of the Old Testament (Old Covenant) Law – especially as it has a role in Holy Communion. Taking into account the hardness of the bread and the hardiness of the flour, the bread seems to represent the incredible burden of keeping the Law and the hardness of the peoples’ heart, who are still led by carnal desires. This would certainly be a worthwhile comparison to the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

Language in Scriptural Interpretation

(Engaging the book "Treasure the Word: A Layperson's Guide to Interpreting Scripture," Joseph Coleson, ed. (Wesleyan Publishing House, 2009))

In his chapter “Language,” David Thompson relates the various ways language and culture are interconnected. In order to understand and intuitively interpret the language used in Biblical writings, the student must pay careful attention to the meanings of the terms. These terms, however, cannot be divorced from their social and historical context. In his first two sections, “Language and Intentional Interpretation” and “Playing by the Rules: Language Games,” Thompson deals with these exact issues arising in Biblical language.

The ability to read Biblical text in its original language does not mean a person is intuitively interpreting it. By having a whole host of resources, history, and other information (especially stored in our minds) helps a person to gain mastery over the text. Thompson says that “the extent of our capacities to enter the thought-world of the text” better enables a person to intuitively interpret in ways faithful to the original intent and to the original culture (pg. 162).

The broader the gap between the culture of the text and the culture of the reader, the more difficult the process can be.  This is particularly true when referring to the study of words. Thompson refers to the “game rules” each culture has in its language. Each culture has its own way of relating words to the things or concepts to which they refer. These language rules are typically learned in childhood and include pronunciations, composition, sentence structure, and how certain terms are differentiated from other terms. By analyzing terms, language rules, and the culture within which they are established, a person is able to more clearly understand the language.

This section of Thompson’s chapter is critically important to the study of Biblical text. In fact, it is some of the most difficult work required for intuitive interpretation. This is why it ought to capture our attention. For many who desire to understand Biblical passages, there is a temptation to jump straight to the summaries regarding the contemporary meaning and applications of the text. This is a great error. Looking at the terms alone misses the critical import of the cultural context within which the terms are used. Since words have meaning, and that meaning is culturally derived, a critical study of the words should not be performed without a critical study of the culture. This can lead the student to rather unfortunate misinterpretations. The result of developing a more clear understanding of the original language and culture will help the student to more faithfully interpret the text. It is from a faithful interpretation of the text, then, that the student is then able to draw more faithful applications when relating the text to a modern day audience. Therefore, this is work that should not be skipped when attempting to interpret Biblical text.

Thompson takes the reader through this process within the chapter by focusing on interpreting Deuteronomy 6:5 and comparing it to Mark 12:30, which has a slightly different interpretation of the same verse. By first addressing the terms used (love, Lord, God, heart, soul, and strength, along with the repeated qualifier “with all”), he shows the importance of understanding the terminology of each.

These terms also exist within a contextual framework – a time, place, purpose, and people. He helps the reader to understand that Deut. 6:5 serves as a general summary of the ten commandments given at  Horeb and a reaffirmation of the covenantal history between Yahweh and His people. At the same time, however, it serves to anchor the forthcoming future exhortations by Moses in Moab.

Without a proper understanding of the book of Deuteronomy being written as a political treaty between the suzerain king Yahweh and His vassal people Israel, a student would wrongly interpret terminology within Deut. 6:5. Specifically the word love, has the biggest potential for misinterpretation. The sense in which it is used here is in keeping with the political/covenant setting that means to preserve the treaty. To love, then, involves faithfully keeping the covenant without any other political allegiance.  It is a love that is obedient and can be commanded. This is a very different understanding than our contemporary usage of the word. This word “love” is then applied to loving with all the heart, soul, and strength.

When love is applied to the “heart” here, it refers to the obedience of a person’s thinking, planning, and reflecting, amongst other intellectual matters. It also includes attitudes, emotions, and feeling. The inclusion of “mind” in Mark 12:30 would help to explain and differentiate between another culture’s understanding of the heart as being primarily emotional and attitudinal versus the mind being primarily cerebral or intellectual. The term in Deut. 6:5 includes both aspects whereas our contemporary culture would separate them. For Mark, then, this seems to be a necessary distinction to make.

There are other aspects of Thompson’s work with Deut. 6:5 that help the reader better understand and interpret. It was a fascinating work to follow, and, as he admits, a still incomplete process toward a fully orbed understanding of the Shema. The paraphrase he constructed was enlightening and clearly empowers the reader to be able to make a well-informed bridge from Biblical text to contemporary culture. 

Effective Leaders

For a long time I have believed the statement that success is very tolerant. Many people find success in a variety of ways – just look at infomercials. One fitness program works better for one person than it does for another. Or we may look at business and Network Marketing industries. Some people succeed very well in one company or industry versus others. These success stories come in all varieties of shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and strategies. One of keys, I believe, are implementing the behaviors consistently. People can find success in both Zoomba and Chuck Norris’ Total Gym because of the set of behaviors they have committed to in order to get the results they desire.


In terms of the effectiveness of pastors, I do not see any difference. Pastoral leadership requires a definitive and unique set of behaviors. As a result, to achieve ‘success’ or to be an effective pastor means we must commit to employing those sets of behaviors.


I think it is important to remember from the research that the information gathered in the table are averages. The average age of the effective pastor was 42. This means there possible would be some very effective leaders in their 50’s or 60’s as well as in their 20’s or 30’s. We should not think that we have to wait until we are in our 40’s that we will somehow attain effectiveness. In similar fashion, we ought to consider the other elements contained within the table (tenure, years of experience, etc.).


In the business world, I have met some effective leaders of every age and background. One of the basic mantras I have heard is “Know what works; do what works.” This speaks directly to skills and behaviors. We have to know what skills it takes in order to be successful and effective in our particular realms of vocation. We then have to commit to the behaviors – to work the plan, so to speak.

Effective Pastors vs Less Effective Pastors

Yes, I think it is very healthy to talk about the differences between effective pastors and less effective pastors. First, it at least causes self-reflection and introspection. From reading this article, I must ask myself, “Am I being an effective leader?” and “How many effective behaviors am I employing?” Asking these questions of ourselves is important for our own personal and professional growth.


Secondly, it is challenging. Though it may sting to think of ourselves as being less effective, it ought to reveal those places where our leadership is weak(er) and need to be addressed. Inviting others to judge our effectiveness is never easy, but necessary. I recently went through my first annual review at my new church. Those who were impacted by my areas of ministry responsibility were involved and they confirmed some things that I already knew were lacking. It also exposed a couple of areas that I did not realize needed to be addressed. Even more, it helped me to further define and clarify what the people I am leading and working with need from me.


Thirdly, and closely related to challenging, it ought to be humbling. The intent is not humiliation, but rather a sober judgment that none of us is perfect, that we all have blind spots, and we all can and should be willing to grow. My recent review was not enjoyable – they never are for me. I realize, however, that they are at the same time helpful. I was able to see that I was not performing to the best of my ability and make the best utilization of my team. We will, of course, do best when we serve within our strengths and empower others to serve within their strengths – especially when they complement our weaknesses.


This distinction doesn't necessarily concern me. Like anything, humans are capable of misusing and abusing. There will also be opportunities for manipulations and power-plays. However, I believe there is more good to come from this than there is evil.

Genesis 3:16-17; 5:29 - "Issabon"

“Issabon” is the word used for “toil” or “pain” in 3:16, 17 and 5:29. Coleson defines the word as “arduous, anxious, even anguished, toil for much diminished or uncertain rewards” (Coleson, ph. 137). It is a word connected to God’s announcement of the curse upon the woman, “I will greatly multiply your pains/toil,” and “with labor/toil you shall produce children” (emphasis added). There is an interesting juxtaposition between the issabon of the pronounced consequences here and the work God had blessed in the garden. It stands in contrast to the satisfying and rewarding work God had appointed them in the garden (cf. 1:28; 2:15).

This term, additionally, is assigned to the man in verse 17. The relationship the man will now have with the ground will be “arduous toil” (emphasis added). It will be an increased labor with diminished returns. Where before the man’s and woman’s work “tending the garden” had not been toil, that all now changes. Both will have great pain, anxiety, and labor in their work.

It is clear that God is showing culpability in these two announcements of the curses. They both share in similar “pain.” Both have an equal stake to claim in their fall. With the introduction of the issabon, we see a fracturing of the created order and of relationships. The woman’s relationship in child-raising will become toil and anxiety-filled, and her pains will be multiplied. The man’s relationship with the ground has become fractured. What once would have been pleasurable, temporary work is now toil daily unto death. I’ll develop this further in the other forum.

[Additional Development]

“Issabon” is the word used for “toil” or “pain.” It occurs three times in Genesis chapters 3-5: 3:16, 17; and 5:29. In fact, these are the only instances the word issabon occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Coleson points out that issabon “refers to arduous, anxious, even anguished, toil for much diminished or uncertain rewards.)” (Coleson, pg. 137). So, again, we see that what was once pronounced by God as good, that which was blessed and approved, and all that was intended to be fulfilling for humanity has become perverted. Actually, it is humanity’s relationship with them that has become perverted.

Fast forward to Genesis 5:28-31. The name of Noah comes from the root nuah, which means rest. Lamech’s statement in v.29, “this one will bring us relief,” uses a similar root naham, which means comfort (bringing relief). Lamech’s hope was that Noah (rest) would bring relief from their work – their toil (issabon).

Since the fall, humanity’s work has been frustrated. The use of issabon has a consistent connection referring back to the curses imposed by God on humanity. As we will remember from that fall, humanity’s desire has been misplaced. The man and woman both desired something other than God. Now with the curses imposed, we see that humanity will always be conflicted in its desires. In one way, we will seek the desire for relief from the curses. This can, and at many times does, conflict with our desires for God.

Additionally, as a result of the fall, our relationships have become fractured and perverted. Our desire for relief from issabon competes with our desire to be intimately connected with God. Our relationship with the ground has become fractured. Our desire for fruitful and enjoying work competes with our issabon work for survival. Also, our relationships with each other have become fractured. The joys and blessings of child rearing now compete with their own issabon.

What is the relief from the issabon? I would suggest on-going covenant faithfulness to God through Jesus Christ would be the starting point.

Genesis 40:15, 41:14 - The Pit

The Pit of Despair

(For all those "Princess Bride" fans).

The word “dungeon” or “pit” (bor) is used twice in chapters 40-41 (40:15; 41:14). However, these are not the first instances of the word in Joseph’s narrative. More than that, it is a word and a metaphor that has come to characterize much of Joseph’s life experiences.

The narrator uses “dungeon” to describe the prison-like life experiences Joseph has been through so far. It is the same word used for the ‘pit’ into which his brothers threw him. Then, from this same pit, he was removed when he was sold into slavery (a different form of ‘prison’ or imprisonment, though not explicitly dealt with in this text). Arnold notes that “from the pit in Canaan, to Potiphar’s house, to this prison, Joseph is innocent and has been treated unjustly“(pg. 339). How ironic it is that the pit becomes a symbol of innocence in Joseph’s life.

Joseph would have to wait for his freedom for another “two whole years” after the cupbearer was released and given freedom. One day, however, Joseph is brought up from the pit and ushered into freedom. To be presentable before the king, he is shaved and exchanges his prison clothes for new ones. This symbolizes his new life and freedom from the prison. His old life of imprisonment was over; he is now starting a new life. Arnold notes that his transformation from “Hebrew slave and prisoner to clean-shaven Egyptian courtier” is an important distinction. It will come later in the narrative when Joseph’s brothers will not recognize him.

So that the title is not misleading, I don’t see any indication within the text that Joseph actually did despair at all in the pit in chapters 40-41. Given the prior knowledge that “the Lord was with” Joseph would be an indicator that he would not need to do so.