The Martyr Complex
Written by T. M. Suffield |
Saturday, April 15, 2023
Essentially, dear sweet people who love Jesus very much think it’s Godly to absolutely crush themselves with responsibilities in and around the church community. It isn’t. Please stop it. This might be motivated by a desire to ‘work’ our salvation or to ‘strive’ towards Jesus. It might be motivated by a sense that we’re supposed to kill ourselves for Jesus (no, we’re meant to kill our selves—harder but less hard work). I think most of the time it’s neither, it’s more likely that they’re good hearted people who take on more bit by bit over time and don’t think it’s OK to say “no” to something.
So often I meet people in churches I’ve been involved in or from elsewhere who are working incredibly hard for Jesus. It’s laudable but it rarely looks to me like the Way of Jesus.
Jesus taught a way of ease, with kind yokes and light burdens (Matthew 11). We should be disciplined (1 Corinthians 9), but we shouldn’t be driving ourselves into the ground.
So often I meet people in churches I’ve been involved in or from elsewhere who are drifting for Jesus. It’s distressing, but I wonder if the church has really done very much to help them get away from it.
Stop Being Martyrs
I think that one of the reasons some people are drifting and others are driving themselves into the ground is because the overworked don’t ask those with no discipline to do anything.
I understand why, ‘ask a busy person if you want something done,’ the business proverb goes. It’s true too, as anyone who has led people knows. They’re competent and do things well and it’s all straightforward. Great, but those aren’t values of the Kingdom. I love it when everything in my church is done really well, why wouldn’t I? But when that gets in the way of asking something else to do anything it’s not a good desire. It’s actually my sinful desire for perfection and it needs to get in the bin.
I don’t think the only problem is that the leaders won’t ask them to do things, they don’t ask because it’s easier to ask the same old people. Which isn’t good, but why do those same old people keep saying, “yes!” with such (fake) enthusiasm? I think it’s because they’re martyrs.
This is especially prevalent in people who helped to plant a church or are on staff, but it can appear wider than that. Essentially, dear sweet people who love Jesus very much think it’s Godly to absolutely crush themselves with responsibilities in and around the church community. It isn’t.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Global and Local Floods: Two Sides of the Same Coin
For Calvin, then, the Flood was not simply an influx of water. It was a disordering of creation that interrupted the normal working of nature. The world was undone on a much deeper level than is recognized by either of the two predominant views, and the result is a miracle as different from a naturalistic flood as a cardiac resuscitation is from a resurrection.
The geographic extent of the Genesis flood recently became a flashpoint on Christian social media. Given the rancor over the topic, one might expect to find critical distinctions between those who argue for a flood that extended over a local area and those who believe it covered the entire globe. And certainly, the two groups each feel the other damages the concept of biblical inerrancy in some way. Yet the reality is the camps are far more similar than different. Both operate from nearly identical presuppositions, and both allow those presuppositions to drive them to adopt minority interpretations of biblical texts. My goal here is to highlight the commonalities and suggest consideration of a third way.
Side 1: A Global Flood
Advocacy for the global flood position is supported by several parachurch organizations that are, if not solely interested in the issue, highly focused upon it. This is unusual, as most apologetic concerns do not draw such dedicated attention. The organizations engage with the development of different flood models, but nearly all of them are propelled by the key assumption that the flood operated in a naturalistic fashion. To be sure, miracles are accepted at various times during the event, but the overriding belief is that the principles of geology observed today can and should be applied to the flood of yesteryear. All the models therefore assume a type of flood geology, in which the surface of the planet was completely reshaped by predictable forces.
Flood geologists often maintain that they hold to the traditional majority interpretations of Scripture. While this is true in many instances, there is at least one section of text they understand in a completely novel way. Gen 2:10-14 reads:
“A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where this is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”
Here Genesis seems to indicate at least some of the Edenic rivers are still flowing, and that the surrounding lands are still in existence. Yet this is clearly incompatible with the notion that the Earth’s surface has been catastrophically changed by the flood. Flood geologists address this challenge by positing that the portions of Genesis describing the antediluvian world were themselves written prior to the flood. After the flood, the names of rivers and lands were reused for the new surface. The pre-flood writings were then translated into Hebrew and integrated into Genesis without revision or editorial comment.
While there is nothing logically impossible about this scenario, it does seem to me to be unnecessarily convoluted. What’s more, it represents a notable deviation in the hermeneutical principles generally employed by flood geologists. Creation science organizations routinely advocate for the interpretation of Scripture to be guided by a plain reading of the text. There is, however, nothing in the plain reading that suggests the Tigris and Euphrates are anything other than the rivers known to Moses’ original audience. Certain scientific pre-commitments cause the text to be read in a way which breaks from both the normal interpretive methodology and the historic understanding. As one article published by Creation Ministries International states:
“The first option is that the Havilah, Cush, Assyria, Tigris, and Euphrates in Genesis 2 are the same as their post-Flood designations. As we noted, this option fails to appreciate the devastation the Flood would have had on the continents, literally reshaping the surface of the planet as miles of sediment were eroded and laid down. Furthermore, as we have shown, it is impossible to match the Bible’s geographical description with the names in Genesis 2. So while biblical creationists such as Luther, Calvin, and many others held this view historically, it is no longer a viable biblical creationist option in light of current geological knowledge.”
Side 2: Local Flood
Advocacy for the local flood position also receives some parachurch support, but it is far less than what is given to the opposing viewpoint. This relative lack of organizational structure may contribute to the greater level of diversity in the details of the local flood models. Considering location alone, one can find suggestions that include the Black Sea, the area around the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Like their global counterparts, the local models all take for granted that the Genesis flood functioned according to known geological principles. Reasons to Believe demonstrates this when answering the question “Could the Genesis Flood Happen the Way it was Written?”:
“From a geoscience perspective this short list of the conditions required to produce Noah’s flood seems reasonable. There was clearly enough water which, when coupled with rapid land level change and suitable topography, could conceivably cause a flood of “biblical proportions.” While these mechanisms may not have been responsible for Noah’s flood, they at least demonstrate that the occurrence of this catastrophic localized flood does not require breaking the laws of science that God himself set in place (Jer. 33:25).”
Holding to a naturalistic view of the flood once again affects the reading of the biblical text. While the continued existence of Edenic lands and rivers pose no issue for the local models, the universal sounding descriptions of the flood require an explanation. These passages are subsequently held to be hyperbolic and limited by the context of the discussion. For example, Gen 7:19 (“And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered”) is explained by an appeal to Deut. 2:25 (“This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you”). Just as Deuteronomy does not intend to describe all the peoples of the globe, so the argument goes, neither does Genesis intend to describe all the mountains on earth. This represents a rejection of the majority reading found throughout history, much like the exegetical choices of the flood geologists.
Cashing Out
To be clear, I don’t believe minority reports should be rejected solely because they are minority reports. Yet I can’t say I’m convinced that either of our friends’ suggestions take a full accounting of the biblical data. There is a verse that nags at me, and it is one that is almost universally ignored in these conversations. The Lord, speaking in Gen. 8:22 after the Flood, states, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” It is a surprising promise. Did the cycle of day and night cease during the flood? Calvin thought so. In his commentary he explains:
“By these words the world is again completely restored. For so great was the confusion and disorder which had overspread the earth, that there was a necessity for some renovation. On which account, Peter speaks of the old world as having perished in the deluge. Moreover, the deluge had been an interruption of the order of nature. For the revolutions of the sun and moon had ceased: there was not distinction of winter and summer.”
For Calvin, then, the Flood was not simply an influx of water. It was a disordering of creation that interrupted the normal working of nature. The world was undone on a much deeper level than is recognized by either of the two predominant views, and the result is a miracle as different from a naturalistic flood as a cardiac resuscitation is from a resurrection. One is reminded of what Vern Poythress wrote in Redeeming Science when discussing the possibly miraculous nature of the flood:
“If the mechanics of the flood are completely unfathomable, no scientific theory can hope to capture them. The flood remains permanently beyond the reach of science. What, then, would scientists find when they examine rocks left behind by the flood? They might find pure chaos, such that no one could make sense of it. But both flood geologists and mainstream geologists think that they find order, and that a great deal can be explained. Evidently, God did not choose to act in a way that just left behind a complete chaos.
Second, one might find that the flood left behind a mature creation, after the manner of the mature creation at the end of the six days of creation. This alternative is less far-fetched than one might think, because the Bible gives clear hints that the flood of Noah represents a pattern of destruction and re-creation. In a manner of speaking, the flood returns the world to the watery, empty situation of Genesis 1:2. The Lord then proceeds to “re-create” an ordered world.”
To adopt a position like this forces us to re-examine our fundamental assumptions of the world. It reminds us that the God of order is Himself not bound by His own creation. The routine operations of the Lord’s governance do not govern Him.
There is a scene in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader when the boy Eustace is speaking to a retired Narnian star in the form of a man. Eustace explains that, “In our world, a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.” The star replies, “Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.” Perhaps all sides of the flood debate might take the sentiment to heart. Perhaps in our world, water is not what the flood was but only what it was made of.
Sean McGinty is a member of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Scottsdale AZ.
Related Posts: -
B. B. Warfield: On Christless Christianity
“Only the fact that Christ stands out in history as surety of the gracious will of God, that in God’s name he punishes sin and calls the sinner to himself, that in holy suffering he endures the lot of sinners in order to convict them of their sin and free them from it, that as the Risen One he brings them the assurance of justification and of eternal life, is able to transform human seeking after salvation into finding. Severed from this fact which forms its very essence, faith is nothing, an empty desire, a question without an answer.”
One of B. B. Warfield’s most insightful essays is “Christless Christianity,” written for The Harvard Review in 1912. It is available in its entirety here: Christless Christianity. It is not an easy essay, but well worth the effort.
Warfield takes aim at those who would divorce Christianity from history thereby eliminating Christ’s cross as the ground of our salvation. He points out that,
There is a moral paradox in the forgiveness of sins which cannot be solved apart from the exhibition of an actual expiation [a payment for sin]. No appeal to general metaphysical or moral truths concerning God can serve here; or to the essential kinship of human nature to God; or, for the matter of that, to any example of an attitude of trust in the divine goodness upon the part of a religious genius, however great, or to promises of forgiveness made by such a one, or even—may we say it with reverence—made by God himself, unsupported by the exhibition of an actual expiation.
No payment for sin, no Christianity. Warfield continues,
The sinful soul, in throes of self-condemnation, is concerned with the law of righteousness ingrained in his very nature as a moral being, and cannot be satisfied with goodness, or love, or mercy, or pardon.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Two Sexes, Created to Be Distinct
We are awash in a world that refuses to believe that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Thankfully, while the pastoral and personal issues are complicated, the Biblical teaching on the trans issue is not. Deuteronomy 22:5 states matter-of-factly.
During one of my summers as a college student—over 25 years ago now—I served as a counselor at a Christian camp. One of our responsibilities as counselor, besides keeping watch over a rowdy bunch of kids and teenagers and trying to teach them something about Jesus, was to come up with skits for the many large group gatherings during the week. Some of the skits were supposed to be serious, but most of them were supposed to make the campers laugh.
The camp director, an older man who has since gone to be with the Lord, told us there were two new rules we had to follow in putting together our brilliant sketch comedies. One, we couldn’t do anything so gross that some poor camper might get sick. Two, no crossdressing. The first rule was disappointing, but made sense. You don’t want to ruin a camper’s week by doing some nauseating food gag. But the second rule felt more inconvenient. After all, it was a staple of zany camp hijinks to have counselors dress up in outlandish outfits, especially men stuffing their shirts full to look like models of exaggerated femininity.
The director didn’t explain his rationale in great detail, and I don’t think it is always wrong for people to wear silly clothes in silly contexts. But I’ve often thought about the prescience in that older man’s wisdom. He knew that we were performing for puberty-throttled teenagers. Even in the late 1990s, he could see the potential confusion that a week of crossdressing skits might cause. Likely, no one would have been scared or led down a path of sexual deviance, but he figured why risk it? Why risk making teenagers feel (even more) insecure about their bodies? Why risk presenting drag—and I’m not sure we even knew the term at the time—as a fun, playful option for Christians? Maybe he was stricter than he needed to be. Or maybe he was ahead of his time.
Anyone with half an ear open to the news knows that we are living through a disturbing and disorienting cultural moment in which grown men and women don’t know (or pretend like they don’t know) the difference between men and women.
Read More
Related Posts: