Note: Doug Phillips, besides being a good friend, is the Executive Pastor at South Church, a large independent Baptist church in Lansing, Michigan. South Church is currently looking for a new worship pastor. If you or someone you know might be interested in the position I encourage you to check out the links or pass them along.

Now on to Doug’s post.

*******

Sometimes it’s helpful for me to try to get the “big picture.” That’s what I’ve tried to do in the following summary of essential characteristics of the authentic Christian life.

And one valuable way of summarizing the Christian life is by looking at the antitheses of godliness. The pursuit of holiness is a journey of ongoing repentance that keeps us “putting off the old” as we simultaneously seek to “put on the new” (Eph. 4:22-24; Col.3: 9-12ff.). As J.I. Packer puts it, “Repenting of any vice means going in the opposite direction, to practice the virtues most directly opposed to  it.” In a time when our entire cultural mood constantly pulls us toward a mediating ‘third way’ instead of embracing an “either-or” it might be helpful for us to remember how much of the New Testament is cast in terms of “this versus that.”

For example, Scripture insists we cannot ‘serve the living and true God’ without ‘turning from idols’ (1 Thess. 1:9). The Spirit is opposed to the flesh, so it’s the new versus the old, when it comes to the pursuit of holiness (Gal. 5:16ff.; 2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 12:14).

And we could cite many more examples of “this versus that” holiness:

• Christ-centered vs. self/man-centered (Gal.2:20; Phil.1:21; 3:4b-11; Col.1:10, 15-18ff.)
• Spirit-empowered vs. ‘flesh’-dominated (Gal. 5:16ff.; Rom.8)
• Gospel-driven (grace) vs. performance-driven (works) (Rom. 11:6; Gal.2:20-21)
• Word-obeying vs. ‘worldly wisdom’ following (Deut. 8:3; Matt.4:4; 28:18-20; 2 Tim.3:16ff;     Jas. 3:13-18 ; 1 Cor.1:18-2:6; 1 Jn.2:3-6)
• Others-loving vs. self-serving (Matt. 20:24-28; Mark 8:34-37; Jn.13:34-35; Matt.22:34ff.)
• World-denying vs. culture-conforming (Rom.12:1-2; 1 Jn.2:15-17)
• Holiness-pursuing vs. ‘self-indulging’ (2 Cor. 5:15; Heb.12:14 ; 2 Pet.1:5ff.)
• Father-glorifying vs. man-pleasing (Mt.5:16; 1 Cor. 10:31; Gal. 1:10)
• The way of peace vs. the way of the transgressor (Matt.11:28-30; Prov. 13:15; Rom.3:15-17)
• The narrow road that leads to life vs. the broad road that leads to destruction  (Matt. 7:13-14; Jn. 3:36; Rom.2:5-11)

It is important to see that all these different facets are interdependent and ‘synergistic’ – the cultivation of the new virtues are to be maintained and experienced together for maximum effectiveness in the simultaneous ‘mortification’ of the old vices (cp. Matt.4:17; Jn. 3:1-16;  Rom. 6; 2 Cor.5:17; Eph. 4:17ff.; Titus 2:11-14; 1 Pet. 1:13-17; 1 Jn.2:15-17).

And here is the most encouraging part – the Bible makes it clear that this entire enterprise of progressive sanctification is empowered by God the Holy Spirit himself. “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13).

And so the believer is called on to “strive for…the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14), but he does so in the confidence that “he who began a good work in [us] will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus.” (Phil.1:6). Paul’s closing benediction to the Thessalonians puts our pursuit of Christ-likeness in heartening perspective:

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. (1 Thess. 5:23-24, emphasis added)

It’s no fun when Christians confront you about your sin even if they do so in a sensitive, grace-filled way. It can be worse if they do so insensitively and ungraciously. And it can be even worse if they insensitively and ungraciously confront you about sin that you’re not guilty of.

But this short post is not about how to receive criticism. It’s about how to confront others.

To make this less abstract, let’s use this example: One Christian confronts another Christian via email about pride because of something he wrote on his blog. We’ll call the former Christian “Mr. Confronter” and the latter “Mr. Blogger.”

If Mr. Blogger really is guilty of pride, then he should be grateful to God that Mr. Confronter loves him enough to care for his soul that way even though the confrontation itself isn’t pleasant.

But Mr. Confronter may be confronting Mr. Blogger about a sin that—as best Mr. Blogger can discern with a clear conscience before God—Mr. Blogger is not guilty of, at least not to the degree accused. That kind of confrontation is awkward and potentially harmful. So we must be cautious in confronting others.

Mr. Confronter, in the example above, makes at least two unwarranted assumptions:

1. What Mr. Blogger did was sinful because it would be sinful for Mr. Confronter if he were Mr. Blogger.
2. Mr. Confronter understands Mr. Blogger and the situation sufficiently to confront him accurately.

This is not to say bloggers are always right and confronters are always wrong. Far from it. But it is a call for caution. Here’s one simple suggestion on how to confront other people in a way that serves them: preface your confrontation by acknowledging your limitations and then end with a question.

Thus, Mr. Confronter’s conversation may look something like this:

“May I share an observation with you? I may be completely wrong here because I don’t know your heart and because I may not understand the situation sufficiently. But I know my own heart better than anyone else’s, and I’m definitely the worst sinner I know! And if I did what you did in this case, I think that I’d be guilty of pride because . . . . Is my observation here anywhere close to the mark?”

If Mr. Blogger doesn’t think that he is guilty in this particular instance, Mr. Confronter could come back with a fellow church member, friend, or elder. But it may not be wise for Mr. Confronter to turn the screws tighter and increase the intensity. Mr. Blogger may be guilty, and God may use the confrontation to convince him of his sin in due course. But Mr. Blogger may not be guilty! So if Mr. Confronter insensitively and ungraciously persists, he may create false guilt and become guilty of the very pride he is condemning.

You can’t control how all other Christians confront you, but you are responsible for how you confront others. So when you confront others, do it in a way that serves them. “I love my fellow-Christians not simply because of the gospel, but I love them best when I am loving them with the gospel! [1 Thes 2:8]” (Milton Vincent, A Gospel Primer for Christians, 22).

Related: See Ken Sande, “Judging Others: The Danger of Playing God,” Parts 1, 2, and 3.

But still, there’s wisdom in considering what different segments of the church may need to hear. The Puritans were masters at this, often dissecting the congregation into different categories and applying the word accordingly. Early in my ministry I developed a fourfold schema that has served me well. In every sermon I try to remember that I’m preaching to the weary, the wandering, the lazy, and the lost. You may have different categories, but I find these four helpful for keeping my sermons fresh, relevant, and not too lopsided in any one direction.

The Weary

These faithful saints need compassion and encouragement. They are fighting the good fight, but they are struggling in some way. Maybe their kids are wayward, or the test results were not hopeful, or they’ve been attacked at work, or they are loaded down with guilt for sins real or imaginary. Whatever the case, these brothers and sisters are feeling weak. They need you to be Richard Sibbes this morning.

The Wandering

These are professing Christians who aren’t living like it. They could be students with a double life–party on Saturday, church on Sunday. Maybe this is a husband pursuing an affair or a wife who refuses to forgive. Maybe it’s an older member who has stopped coming to church regularly. These folks need warning and rebuke.

The Lazy

These are the apathetic and nominal Christians. They know all the right answers and they basically avoid the obvious mistakes, but they’re rending their garments and not their hearts. They are superficial Christians. Their faith costs nothing, risks nothing, and probably counts for nothing. Our churches are filled with these folks. They need conviction of sin. They need an ringing alarm clock in their ear.

The Lost

These individuals need warning too, but they are in a different boat. They don’t claim to be Christians. They may have hurts (real or imagined) from the church. They may have intellectual objections. They may have unfair stereotypes of Christians. They don’t need an us-against-them message. They need to someone to understand their objections. They need truth, sometimes strongly, sometimes subtly.

Learning More Than One Part

In most congregations, you’ll have all four groups in church every Sunday (though sadly the last category–self-identified non-Christians–may not always be present). If you only preach to one group you’ll get in a rut and invariably you’ll not be preaching the whole counsel of God.

If your preaching is always aimed at the weary, you’ll do well at emphasizing the grace of God and the tenderness of God. But what about the lazy and the wandering who feel perfectly and mistakenly secure? What about those who do not need a pat on the back but a kick in the pants? It’s good for every sermon to land on the gospel, but sometimes it’s best to wade through a lot of law before you get there.

If you always preach to the wandering and lazy, you’ll give people a good beatin up, but you may hurt the dear saints who come to church most Sundays already feeling beat up. Some sermons should be a trumpet blast, but if that’s all you do, their ears may start to hurt, or worse, they’ll grow deaf to your sound.

And if you only think of the lost in your midst, you’ll be winsome and relevant, but you may not get into the sort of issues that longtime Christians need to hear. You may shy away from necessary controversy and forget that sometimes the lost are earnest seekers, but sometimes they’re just punks (as we all are at times).

Most preachers gravitate toward one or two groups, sometimes for good reason. Bryan Chapell is well suited for the weary, John Piper for the wandering, Matt Chandler for the lazy, Time Keller for the lost. God doesn’t ask us to preach like only someone else can or preach for someone else’s context. But he does want preachers to remember that the choir is made up of more than just sopranos. So when you’re preaching, be sure to hand out more than one part.

Here’s what you don’t want to do if you are the pastor:

And while we’re at it, here’s a valuable lesson on not your locking your knees:

Christians can, therefore, adopt and recommend no single attitude toward possessions. When they attempt to understand their lives within the world of biblical narrative, they are caught in the double movement of enjoyment and renunciation.

Neither half of the movement, taken by itself, is the Christian way of life. Trust is the Christian way of life.

In order to trust, renunciation is necessary, lest we immerse ourselves entirely in the things we possess, trying to grasp and keep what we need to be secure. In order to trust, enjoyment is necessary, lest renunciation become a principled rejection of the creation through which God draws our hearts to himself.

Indeed, affirmation must, I think, have the final word. Principled renunciation is more dangerous than principled enjoyment because created goods are channels through which the divine glory strikes us, and those who love and delight in any good thing may yet learn to love god. The heart may be drawn from image to Reality. But to renounce all enjoyment of created things—to delight in nothing—must either be only one part of a movement that, we trust, will end in enjoyment, or it must be hell. (“The Problem of Possessions” in The Preferential Option for the Poor, 85-86)

This seems wise and balanced. Without renunciation of created things we may fashion our own God. But without enjoyment we have no God at all.

“What right do you ever have to leave a church?” I can remember that question being asked by my ecclesiology professor in seminary. It is a good question and one that would benefit us all to wrestle with. As Kevin has recently pointed out on this blog, there is biblical warrant and there are practical reasons for entering into covenant through local church membership. Having entered into that covenant our breaking of it should never be done lightly. Clearly, there are reasons to leave a local church. But what are they? I have been thinking about this for the past ten years and this is my attempt at answering the question:

Good Reasons for Moving On—The Four P’s

1. Providential moving—If my job, family, or life has moved me from Dallas to Austin then I should probably find a local church in Austin, let alone if I moved from Michigan to North Carolina. It is right and good to belong to a local church and covenant with brothers and sisters in my own “backyard.”

2. Planting another church—It may be that I haven’t left my home town, but the church I belong to has decided to send me out with others to plant another church in the area. Notice though, that I am being sent out by my church, not leaving with a group of people because I am disgruntled or think it is a good idea.

3. Purity has been lost— It may take different forms, but primarily this occurs when the Word is no longer proclaimed. It could be that heresy is being taught, the Bible is never read or preached, or a much more prominent manifestation these days is that the Word is no longer seen as sufficient; it is used as a seasoning for the message of the week rather than the diet by which the congregation is fed and nourished upon. However, we must be careful here; patience should always be exercised and I must always test my own heart to see if I am “making a mountain out of a molehill.”

4. Peace of the church is in jeopardy due to my presence— This “reason” is hard to suggest for fear of it being abused, as it is by far the most subjective “reason.” However, there are cases where an individual/family can personally become a hindrance to the ministry of the local church and it is best for that person/family to move-on. If this is the reason I am contemplating leaving the church, then I must first test myself and discern whether it is because of sin on my own part. If that is the case then I must be quick to repent rather than move-on. This “reason” should always be approached with trepidation,

Possible Reasons for Moving On – The Three S’s

1. Spouse—An unbelieving or non-church attending spouse is not willing to attend this church, but will attend another with you.

2. Special Needs—Every family has special needs, so this one needs to be handled with care. A possible example may be that my family has a disabled child and another faithful church in the area has a wonderful ministry to disabled people which can help us.

3. Special Gifts—Another faithful church in the area may have asked for you to use your special gifts in their midst for the building up of the body (i.e. organist). Never decide this one on your own. If it is a possible reason, then it is too easy to think too highly of oneself and go running to the greener pastures. This is always something that should be taken to the leadership of your current church and wrestled through.

Reasons Often Used Which are Insufficient

1. Children’s Ministry—The Children’s ministry at another church is better. This cannot be a reason for changing churches. It is rather an opportunity for you to get involved in the children’s ministry of your church.

2. Buzz—Many people will flow to whatever church in town has the current “buzz.” The argument will be that the Spirit is at work there and we want to be part of it. But buzzes come and go. And so do the people that follow them.

3. Youth Group—The unhappiness of our teenage children in the current Youth Group, because of activities, other youth, etc. is not a reason for leaving the church we have covenanted with. I know this one will be controversial. Believe me, I have empathy as a parent and a former Youth Pastor. But our children are not the spiritual directors of our home. They should not be choosing the church we attend based upon their social status and network.

4. Church has changed—Churches always change. Unless the changes are unbiblical than we don’t have a reason to move on. We don’t move on when our wife or husband changes! We are we so quick to do so with the church we have covenanted with.

5. New Pastor—A new pastor is not a sufficient reason to change churches. It doesn’t matter how stiff, impersonal, unfunny, etc. he is. The list is endless. It doesn’t even matter if he is not the most interesting preacher. He is the man God called to this church for this time. And this is your church. Again, unless he is unbiblical why move on? You haven’t covenanted with a man, but with this body.

6. I’m Not Being Ministered to—I tell every one of our new member classes, “If we all walked into church each week and had a list of people we were going to try and ‘touch,’ encourage, or minister to, do you know how dynamic this church would be? Just on Sunday mornings, let alone if we did it during the week. If we each were concerned about the other person and walked in each Sunday with that in the forefront of our mind instead of, “Why didn’t he talk to me?,” “Why doesn’t anyone care about me?,” “Why isn’t anyone ministering to me?” Start ministering to others and you will find that you are being ministered to.

7. Music—Not a reason—whether it is slow, fast, traditional, contemporary, Psalms, hymns, or gospel choruses. Stop using it as an excuse!

8. There are others…we haven’t even mentioned the service is too early, the coffee is terrible, the pastor doesn’t know how to shuck corn (Yep…those are all true ones I have heard).

A husband-wife team in the early 1870s immediately preceded the early Keswick movement: Robert Pearsall Smith (1827–98) and Hannah Whitall Smith (1832–1911).

Hannah is most famous for her book The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. Her book’s essential message is Keswick theology: “entire surrender” or “entire abandonment” (i.e., “let go”) and “absolute faith” (i.e., “let God”).

But what most people don’t know is that she and her husband had anything but “happy” lives. The Smith family experienced a series of sad events, including the following:

1. At the height of his success as a higher life revivalist, Robert fell doctrinally and morally, nearly destroying the entire Keswick movement.
2. Robert and Hannah’s deteriorating marriage declined even further. Hannah’s intense feminism and independence, Robert’s manic-depressive nature, and Robert’s persistence in unrepentant adultery all contributed to a very unhappy marriage.
3. Robert apostatized and became an agnostic.
4. Hannah apostatized. She lost interest in the higher life, rejoined the Quakers in 1886, and embraced universalism and religious pluralism.

Her book, nevertheless, continues to sell as a “classic” in various evangelical circles.

Tidbit: My wife, Jennifer Joy (Becker) Naselli, is related to Hannah Whitall Smith through both the Whitall and Mickle lines. Jenni is Hannah’s second cousin six generations removed.

For further reading:

1. Barbara Strachey, Remarkable Relations: The Story of the Pearsall Smith Women (New York: Universe, 1980).
2. Marie Henry, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1984).
3. Melvin E. Dieter, “Smith, Hannah Whitall and Robert Pearsall,” Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (ed. Timothy Larsen, David William Bebbington, and Mark Allan Noll; Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 616–18.
4. Mary Agnes Rittenhouse Maddox, “‘Jesus Saves Me Now’: Sanctification in the Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003).
5. Andrew David Naselli, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010). See esp. pp. 102–16.

Let me begin with three disclaimers. First, I am a pastor (so I am speaking to myself). Second, I am a Presbyterian pastor (which means I spend a lot of time with other pastors whether I want to or not—and usually I do). Third, I love the men I serve alongside of in the pastorate (these are truly men to be held in double honor). So the critique I am about to offer comes from one who knows and spends a lot of time with other pastors and loves them.

It seems to me that there is a glaring fault in many, if not most pastors: they are horrible listeners. I find that pastors are some of the worst listeners I have ever been around. I know that this could only be my experience, but I truly doubt it. Now don’t misunderstand me, this is not true of all pastors, but I find that it is true of many. And it grieves me.

It seems to me that pastors tend to be poor listeners for a few reasons: they are usually assertive people and have trouble slowing down, have honestly heard many of the same things multiple times (counseling situations, theological questions, etc.) thus they feel like they “know” where the conversation is headed, they are multi-taskers who tend to think they can listen and think about other things at the same time, and they are used to talking/preaching with others listening to them!

If there are men who should be good at listening, it should be pastors. How can we truly minister to the sheep of Christ unless we know them? And how do we know them unless we listen to them? Here are a few friendly suggestions to aid pastors in giving a better listening ear:

• Sermons are for the pulpit—Leave sermons in the pulpit and enter into dialogue with your people. Dialogue requires talking and listening. Taking breaths in conversation is a good thing. It allows the other person to talk!

• Remember that the person before you is the person you are to be ministering to—seize this moment instead of thinking about talking to the person “over there.”

• Be teachable—we may be called to teach, but that does not mean that we can’t be taught ourselves.

• Show honor to all—the five year old or the mentally disabled person begging for your attention and conversation after the worship service is just as important as the District Attorney and his wife who are walking by.

• Silence is golden—Silence in conversation is fine. The tension is not a bad thing. It often helps bring the true issue to the surface. Don’t fill the space.

• Maintain eye contact—most pastors are multitaskers and are busy looking around. Stop!

• Ask questions—avoid jumping to conclusions and giving your stock answer. Ask clarifying question after clarifying question.

• Don’t always feel the need to lead—Many pastors are busy leading all the time and so every conversation they enter into is dominated by them. Allow others to lead the conversation. You will surprised at what others want to talk about.

• Don’t be “super-spiritual”—Every conversation does not have to end with a discourse on the atonement. Nor does every conversation need to be a demonstration forum of your Bible knowledge.

• Think through questions—On your way to a meeting with someone, make a mental list of questions to ask them. And then ask the questions and listen.

• Care tenderly—Always remember that these are Christ’s sheep. They are his and we are to lead them with a loving-tender care. And surely that must mean listening to them.

Most pastors I know love the Lord and love the people under their care. However, often our people doubt it because they don’t sense it. And they often don’t sense it, because we don’t listen.

I have found listening to God’s people to be one of the most enjoyable exercises in life. It is a true blessing to hear how God is working and has worked in the lives of individuals. What stories God has given each person! What passions each individual has! And what sorrows, discouragements, and fears are in every being I have ever met! Each of these cries out for a listening ear. And what benefit there is in the Kingdom when pastors not only teach and preach and talk, but listen to their people. This will only provide greater knowledge and wisdom for your current and future ministry to this person. And who knows…maybe you will even be ministered to by listening to them.

Here are the other six posts: Micah 6:8; Amos 5; Matthew 25:31-46; Jeremiah 22; Isaiah 58; Isaiah 1.

And here are some earlier posts on the same theme: Moral Proximity; Leviticus 19; Leviticus 25; the term social justice.

Now on to Luke 4:16-21.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

No doubt, this text is one of the clearest statements of Jesus’ mission and the goals of his ministry. It is also one of the most misunderstood. In popular explanations, Luke 4 underscores that Jesus’ mission focused on the materially destitute and the downtrodden. In this interpretation, Jesus is Messiah and social liberator. He came to bring the year of jubilee to the oppressed. He came to transform social structures and bring God’s creation back to shalom. Therefore, our mission, in keeping with Christ’s mission, is, to quote one well-respected book “to extend the kingdom by infiltrating all segments of society, with preference given to the poor, and allowing no dichotomy between evangelism and social transformation (Luke 4:18-19).” Above all else, Luke 4, it is argued, shows that Jesus’ mission was to serve the poor. Shouldn’t that be our mission too?

This common approach to Luke 4 is not entirely off base, but it misses two critical observations.

First, it overlooks the actual verbs Jesus’ read from the Isaiah scroll. The Spirit of the Lord, resting upon Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, would anoint him to proclaim good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. With the exception of “to set at liberty the oppressed” (which we’ll come back to in a moment), these are all speaking words. While it’s certainly true that Jesus healed the sick and gave sight to the blind (as pointers to his deity and as signs of the kingdom’s in-breaking), the messianic mission statement in Luke 4 highlights the announcement of good news. If Luke 4 sets the tone for the mission of the church, then our mission ought to focus mainly on the preaching of the gospel.

Second, the “missions as social transformation” reading of Luke 4 assumes too much of a strictly economic understanding of “the poor” (ptochos). While ptochos in verse 18 is probably not without some reference to material poverty, there are several reasons to think the word signifies much more than this.

(1) The quotation is from Isaiah 61:1 where the poor are lumped in with the “broken-hearted” and “all who mourn.” The poor in Isaiah are not just materially poor; they are the humble poor, the mournful ones waiting for their promised “oil of gladness” and their “garment of praise” (Isa. 61:3). The Hebrew anaoim in verse 1 can be translated “poor” (ESV, NIV) or “meek” (KJV) or “afflicted” (NASB, ESV footnote). All are possible because something more than material poverty is in mind.

(2) Likewise, the Greek word ptochos can speak of literal or figurative poverty. Of the ten uses of ptochos in Luke, seven should be taken as literal poverty (14:13, 21; 16:20, 22: 18:22; 19:8; 21:3), while three may be figurative (4:18; 6:20; 7:22). Elsewhere in the New Testament, Revelation 3:17 is a clear instance where ptochos should be taken figuratively. Laodicea thought themselves rich (and they were materially), but on a deeper spiritual level they were “wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.” As in English, the Greek word for “poor” carries different shades of meaning, both literal and figurative.

(3) A strictly literal understanding of “the poor” in the immediate context would not make sense. If “the poor” are the literally poor, then “the captives,” “the blind,” and “the oppressed” should be taken literally as well. And yet there is no instance in the gospels of Jesus setting a literal prisoner free (something that confused John the Baptist [Luke 7:18-23]). Quite naturally we understand captivity and oppression to include spiritual bondage. It is not inappropriate, then, to put a spiritual gloss on “the poor” as well.

(4) The slightly wider context makes the same point. Jesus mentions two examples of the type of person who experienced the Lord’s favor in the Old Testament. One is the widow of Zarephath. She was materially poor. But the other example is Naaman, the important Syrian general who humbled himself by dipping seven times in the Jordan River. If these are the examples of good news for the poor, the poor has more to do with poverty of spirit than material destitution.

(5) The materially rich do not always fair badly in Luke-Acts. In fact, David Bosch, one of the seminal thinkers in the missional theology, goes so far as to say Luke is more “the evangelist of the rich” than “the evangelist of the poor.” Bosch doesn’t mean at all that Luke favors the rich. That’s plainly not the case. What he means is that Luke more any other evangelist tries to show how the materially rich can, and do, get it right. So only in Luke’s gospel do we get John the Baptist’s instructions on what repentance looks like for tax collectors, soldiers, and those with two tunics (3:10-14). Only in Luke do we have the story of Zacchaeus to offset the story of the rich young ruler (Luke 18-19). And in Acts, Luke mentions the generosity of land-holder Barnabas immediately before he tells the story of lying Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4:36-37; 5:1-11). If Jesus were only good news for the materially poor, there would be no way to explain these stories of the commendable rich.

So for all these reasons I agree with Andreas Kostenberger and P.T. O’Brien that “The ‘poor’ to whom the good news is announced are not to be understood narrowly of the economically destitute, as most recent scholars have suggested; rather the term refers more generally to ‘the dispossessed, the excluded’ who were forced to depend upon God.” I agree with David Bosch when he concludes, “Therefore, in Luke’s gospel, the rich are tested on the ground of their wealth, whereas others are tested on loyalty toward their family, their people, their culture, and their work (Lk. 9:59-61). This means the poor are sinners like everybody else, because ultimately sinfulness is rooted in the human heart. Just as the materially rich can be spiritually poor, the materially poor can be spiritually poor.” Many other scholars past and present, including Eckhard Schnabel, David Hesselgrave, Robert Stein, Christopher Little, I. Howard Marshall, and Darrell Bock have come to similar conclusions.

This does not rule out an economic component to ptochos in Luke 4. The poor are often the economic poor because material hardship more often than material plenty translates into spiritual sensitivity, humility, and the desperation that gives you the ears to hear God’s voice. There’s a reason Jesus said “blessed are the poor” instead of “blessed are the rich.” The poor are more apt to see their need for help than the rich. The Greek word ptochos is, to use quote Darrell Bock, best described as a “soteriological generalization.” It refers to those who are open to God, responsive to him, and see their dependence upon him. It is to these that Jesus proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor. Therefore, Jesus’ mission laid out in Luke 4 was not a mission of structural change and social transformation, but a mission to announce the good news of his saving power and merciful reign for all those brokenhearted enough to believe.