1

2 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS

Gentle Authority (2 Cor. 10:1-2)

It takes great strength and maturity not to respond in kind when one is slandered and maliciously

maligned. If ever there were a knee-jerk reaction that feels justified, it comes in our response to those who

without ground or reason spread lies about us and question our integrity behind the scenes. It seems well

within our rights to give vent to the anger in our souls and to "let ‘em have it"!

No one knew this better than the apostle Paul, the victim of repeated misinformation and rumor. It appears

yet again in 2 Corinthians 10:1-2. But as you read it, take careful note of his response:

"I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ - I who am humble when face to

face with you, but bold toward you when I am away! - I beg of you that when I am present I may not have

to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking

according to the flesh" (2 Cor. 10:1-2).

There's no great mystery about what was happening behind the scenes in this ancient city and church.

Enemies of Paul, those envious of his influence and authority, had spread the rumor that he was two-

faced, that he lacked the integrity to be himself at all times, that he adapted to his circumstances in a way

that was inconsistent with his true character, that he related to people from motives that were self-serving

and cared only about the preservation of his own reputation and well being.

Paul articulates this accusation in a somewhat sarcastic way, describing himself as one who is "humble

when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away." In other words, he had heard what was

being said of him in Corinth. "The rumor is fast and spreading," said Paul, "that when I'm in your

presence I lack the courage to be forthright and strong about my opinions. They say I'm a weakling, that I

so fear your rejection and so selfishly covet your approval that I'm careful not to say or do anything that

would upset you or put my image at risk. ‘Look at Paul,' they say. ‘Such a timid man; so meek and

subservient and deferential to the desires of others.' Ah, but when I'm away and out of your reach, then I

let loose and exert my apostolic authority, boldly insisting on your complete obedience. When I'm far

removed from your presence and feel safe, I suddenly put on a different face and assume an authoritarian

posture to get my way in your midst."

What could possibly have led to such charges? Is there something in the way Paul had conducted himself

that contributed to this misunderstanding? It's possible that two factors may have played a part.

You may recall the firm and unyielding position Paul took regarding the man guilty of incest (see 1 Cor.

5). Paul had insisted on the corporate discipline of this unrepentant sinner. He evidently mentioned it

again in the so-called non-canonical "severe" letter he wrote to them (2 Cor. 2:3-4). It's entirely possible

2

that some used this as an excuse to accuse him of being bold "at a distance," when he was, so to speak,

out of the reach of any personal consequences for his authority.

As for the charge of being weak when present among them, this may have come as a result of his "painful

visit" (2 Cor. 2:1) when he chose not to immediately discipline some who were guilty of immorality. In

any case, the rumors were vicious and hurtful: "Paul, we simply don't trust you. You appear selfishly

pragmatic. Your behavior leads us to believe you'll do whatever is convenient and serves your interests,

regardless of how it may affect us."

One author sums it up as follows:

"It is clear that Paul has been accused of being a cowardly bully who is very good at writing domineering

letters. They said that in person he was a craven weakling, an ineffectual wimp. But he had megalomaniac

pretensions: a timid puppy who barked like a 'bold' rottweiler from behind the fence! 'His letters are

weighty and forceful,' they said, 'but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing'

(10:10)" (165).

But there was even more to their charge. They suspected Paul "of walking according to the flesh" (v. 2).

This had to be just as distressing, if not more so, than the accusation that he was two-faced. Here they are

questioning his relationship to the Holy Spirit, insinuating that he lived his life and made his decisions

and chose his words without regard to the leading of the Spirit. Far from being a Spirit-filled and Spirit-

led man, they were saying he was devoid of the Spirit's presence, relied little on the Spirit's power, and

simply followed the promptings of his flesh! Ouch!

Paul was undoubtedly deeply wounded by this display of distrust on the part of the Corinthians. Anger

probably also factored into his response. It would have been so very easy and natural to assume a self-

defensive posture and explode in righteous rage. But note well two distinctive features in his reply.

First, despite the fact that he has been charged with being "bold" and "insistent" only in his letters (cf. v.

10), Paul refuses to take the bait and blast them with apostolic commands. Rather he appeals, using

language that is deeply personal and emotional, even tender ("I, Paul, myself entreat you").

Second, instead of appealing to the majestic and irresistible authority of the risen and exalted Lord, he

grounds his appeal in "the meekness and gentleness of Christ" (v. 1). He points to those two

characteristics of Jesus that portray him as slow to take offense, willing to bear reproach, and self-

sacrificing. These, Paul says, are my model for ministry. These, Paul says, are the spirit in which I make

my appeal.

The two words summarize Jesus as gentle, gracious, not given to retaliation or malice in his relations with

others, free from contentiousness or aggression. Paul probably has in mind the entire demeanor of our

Lord's earthly life and especially his posture of non-retaliation during his beatings and eventual

crucifixion (cf. 1 Peter 2:23).

Zechariah had long ago prophesied of the Messiah that he would be, above all things, "humble" (Zech.

9:9), something that Jesus declared of himself in Matthew 11:29. Humility and meekness and lowliness of

heart were characteristics of the heart that Jesus highly valued and blessed (cf. Mt. 5:5).

Paul says, in effect, "Don't expect me to respond to your sins against me any differently than Jesus

responded to those who sinned against him. If he could humble himself and choose the path of gentleness,

so must I."

But let no one misunderstand the apostle or again take his words as an indication that he will abdicate the

position Christ has bestowed upon him. Paul fully intends to be as "bold" as he must in order to put things

3

right when he finally arrives. The words "with such confidence as I count on showing" could more

accurately be rendered "with which I dare to be courageous." The point is this: "Far from flaunting his

authority by rushing into disciplinary action, Paul envisions the prospect as a dare that cannot be avoided,

not a challenge to be encountered with relish" (Carson, 36).

As Murray Harris has noted, in v. 2a "Paul is pleading with the Corinthians to avoid forcing him to act

boldly . . . in a display of his confidence as an apostle having the Lord's authority (10:8). In effect he is

saying, ‘Don't mistake the timidity that some people credit me with . . . for weakness and the inability or

unwillingness to act with authority and dispatch'" (673).

As noted above, some had also accused Paul of walking "according to the flesh" (v. 2). The word "flesh"

is generally used by Paul in one of three ways: (1) as a neutral reference to the physical body; (2) as a

pejorative reference to the fallen, sinful nature; or (3) as a reference to the standards of excellence as the

world judges excellence. Here he has in mind this third notion. Their calumny against Paul was that he is

unimpressive, ineffective, a third-rate orator who is not sufficiently worthy to warrant remuneration, and

inexperienced in visions and revelations which are the hallmark of spirituality (as they define it). He

simply "does not attain to the high standards of spirituality and leadership that they claim for themselves!

He lives and serves at the lowly level of this world, of flesh; they minister as dynamic, spiritual leaders

whose spiritual experiences attest their superiority, and whose rhetoric demonstrates their God-given

graces" (Carson, 37-8).

There is much for us to learn from this. Perhaps the greatest practical lesson is the importance of a proper

balance between humility and tenderness in dealing with those who sin against us and a determination to

hold our ground in accordance with whatever authority the Lord has granted. Paul was neither a bully nor

would he be bullied. He took Jesus as his role model. Aggression was out of the question, but that didn't

entail an abandonment of the rightful authority granted him by the risen Christ.

Oh, how easily we gravitate to one of two extremes, giving more weight than is due to one or the other of

these crucial characteristics. Either we equate humility and gentleness with a cowardly withdrawal and a

reluctance to draw a line in the sand, or we insensitively crack the whip of authority without regard for the

welfare of the souls entrusted to our care. May Paul's godly and Christ-like example be an encouragement

to us all!

CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS: Taking Every Thought Captive for Christ

(2 Cor. 10:4-6)

We live in an age of angry atheism; not simply a casual and indifferent disregard for the existence of God

but a militant opposition to all things religious. Most are by now aware (and sick of hearing about) such

folk as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

What should be our response, if any? Do we simply ignore them, confident that in time they will fade

away as have other skeptics in centuries past? Fade away they will, but I believe we should be more

proactive in our efforts to expose the ill-founded and prejudicial nature of their arguments. That's why I'm

grateful for the work of such notable Christian apologists as Tim Keller (The Reason for God), Alister

McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion), Ravi Zacharias (The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists),

and Al Mohler, Jr. (Atheism Remix). What they and their books have achieved is akin to what Paul had in

mind when he wrote the following:

"For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We

destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought

4

captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete" (2

Corinthians 10:4-6).

What can our weapons do? They destroy "strongholds" or "fortresses" (NASB), vivid imagery indeed.

Paul's use of this word recalls the ancient practice of building a massively fortified tower inside the walls

of a city where its citizens might retreat to make their final defense. But to what does Paul's language

actually refer? What are the literal "strongholds" that our divinely empowered weapons destroy? Verse 5

gives the answer.

First, they are "arguments" or "speculations" (NASB), by which Paul means the thoughts, plans, and

intentions designed to justify one's calloused disbelief in God (cf. 2 Cor. 2:11; 4:4; Rom. 1:21; l Cor.

3:20). He is saying that our weapons "destroy the way people think, demolish their sinful thought patterns,

the mental structures by which they live their lives in rebellion against God" (Carson, 47).

Second, our weapons are effective in bring down "every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of

God, (or, "every pretension that sets itself up against the kingdom of God," NIV). People will often

appear humble in their appeal to intellectual doubt as a way of keeping God at arm's length. Others

"display a supercilious and condescending cynicism" or claim "an intellectual independence that loves to

debate theology without ever bending the knee in adoring worship" (Carson, 48). But we have been

graciously equipped by God with the necessary weaponry to overcome every arrogant claim, every

haughty or prideful thought, every pompous act that forms a barrier to the knowledge of God. We are

fully empowered to address every argument used to rationalize sin and to justify unbelief and to delay

repentance.

Furthermore, our warfare is not merely aimed at dismantling and tearing down the sinful reasoning and

rationalizations which are strongholds by which the mind fortifies itself against the gospel. It is

actually effective in doing so! The gospel will always remain foolishness to some and a stumbling block to

others, but to those "who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18), "to those who are called,

both Jews and Greeks" (1 Cor. 1:24), the gospel of a crucified Christ is "the power of God and the

wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 24b).

The ultimate aim, of course, is to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (v. 5b). The picture is of "a

military expedition into enemy territory, an expedition so effective that every plan of the enemy is

thwarted, every scheme foiled, every counter-offensive beaten" (Carson, 50). Whatever ideas of the

unbeliever hindered faith, whatever notions or plans were barriers to repentance, they are defeated,

captured, and graciously transformed, to be brought under the authority of Christ and ultimately to

acknowledge a new loyalty, a new allegiance.

Barnett suggests that, given the context, the "weaponry" Paul has in mind might refer to "his disciplinary

ministry to them at the time of the second [painful] visit and through the ‘Severe Letter'" (464). On this

view, the "destruction of fortresses" and the "pulling down" of speculations refer to his victory over the

person who wronged him (cf. 2:6; 7:12) and those in the congregation who have undermined his apostolic

authority. This interpretation, however, is generally regarded as too narrow and restricted to fully account

for Paul's language.

So what then are our weapons of warfare? What is it that Paul utilizes to bring about this triumphant

result? Surely he would point to the same armaments he cited in Ephesians 6:13-18, such as truth and

righteousness and unyielding proclamation of the gospel and faith and the glory of salvation and the Word

of God and persistent prayer. These may not seem formidable, especially when one considers the political

power and financial resources available to those who stand in opposition. But they are enough. And they

are effective.

5

There are two additional issues that need to be addressed.

First, some have misinterpreted and misapplied this text as if it spoke of cosmic level spiritual warfare

(i.e., territorial demons). "Strongholds" and every "lofty thing" (NASB) have been taken as referring to

demonic spirits who have been assigned by Satan to specific territorial or geographic regions. We then,

according to this view, are called to identify, engage, and, as it were, pull them down (ostensibly through

prayer, fasting, proclamation, etc.). But the enemies in view are ideas and arguments and philosophies

and excuses that are antithetical to the kingdom and glory of God. This isn't to pass judgment on whether

there are territorial spirits, but simply to point out that this isn't what Paul had in mind when he penned

this passage.

Yet, again, it is worth asking: Who is behind these thoughts? Who inspires and energizes such anti-

Christian arguments and philosophies? What gives them the force that they appear to exert on the human

soul? We mustn't forget that it is "the prince of the power of the air" who is even now "at work in the sons

of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2; cf. 4:17-19). We've already seen in 2 Corinthians 4:4 how "the god of this

world [i.e., Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the

gospel of the glory of Christ.” How are they blinded if not by being deceived with philosophical and

religious lies? Paul even said that Christ had called him "to open their eyes, so that they may turn from

darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18). In describing the condition of the

latter days he spoke of "deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (l Tim. 4:1).

So, whereas there is no basis for finding any reference to so-called "territorial" spirits here in 2

Corinthians 10, there is certainly good reason to think that Paul's warfare and divinely empowered

weaponry applied to his (and our) conflict with principalities and powers, ruler and authorities, the cosmic

powers and spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places (Eph. 6:12) who so often confuse and harden and

blind and enslave those who are resistant to the gospel.

Second, contextually Paul is talking about "strongholds" in the lives and minds of those in the Corinthian

church who were resistant to his apostolic authority. But do ordinary Christians today have them too?

Yes. Such intellectual, philosophical, and moral enemies to the knowledge of God don't automatically and

altogether disappear when we get saved.

I once heard someone define a stronghold as "a mindset impregnated with hopelessness that causes us to

accept as unchangeable something we know is contrary to God's will." What he had in view are negative

patterns of thought that cripple our ability to obey God and thus breed feelings of guilt and despair. They

are often burned into our minds either through repetition over time (such as occurs in an abusive,

incestuous relationship) or through a one-time traumatic experience, or even more commonly through the

influence of false teaching and a skewed theology. In relation to this latter point, Clint Arnold believes

that "the critical thrust of the passage is directed against christological heresy. . . . Therefore, in its

original context, demolishing strongholds refers to changing wrong ideas about Christ in the minds of

believers who have been influenced by demonically inspired teaching" (Three Crucial Questions about

Spiritual Warfare, 54-55).

Whatever the case, no matter the opposition, the good news is that we have access to powerful and

efficacious resources, adequate to prevail over all resistance and to defeat every enemy (cf. Rom. 12:1-2;

Eph. 4:20-24). We must dedicate ourselves to thinking and meditating on whatever is true and honorable

and just and pure and lovely and commendable and excellent and worthy of praise (Phil. 4:8) and entrust

ourselves to the power of the Spirit who can overcome the influence of every negative and destructive

thought.

6

CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS: In the Flesh, But Not According to the Flesh

(2 Cor. 10:3-4)

It had to have stung more than a little bit when Paul received word that people were accusing him of

reliance on mere human tactics and a this-worldly power, while largely abandoning the resources of the

Holy Spirit. Let's not forget that Jesus was the object of an even more scurrilous charge. The religious

leaders of his day insisted that the power in his life that accounted for healing of the sick and casting out

of demons was not that of the Spirit but of Satan himself (see Mt. 12:22-32).

There's no indication that Paul's enemies in Corinth were repeating this slanderous charge, but they did

spread the rumor that his plans and decisions and the implementation of his "ministry" were the fruit of a

sinister, self-serving motive and shaped by principles lacking in spirituality.

Of course, Paul was happy to acknowledge that he walked or lived "in the flesh," but he steadfastly

opposed any suggestion that he waged spiritual war or ministered among the Corinthians "according to

the flesh." And as we'll soon see, there's a world of difference between the two. Contrary to their baseless

accusations, Paul insisted that "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to

destroy strongholds" (2 Cor. 10:3-4).

Let me make a couple of observations about his use of language in this text and then we'll turn our

attention to its application in our own day.

They key to understanding Paul's response is found in his use of the word "flesh" in v. 3 to mean two

different things. When he declares that "we walk in the flesh" (Gk. sarx; although the NIV renders it

"world"), he is referring to life on earth in general. This is simply his way of describing our basic human

condition that applies equally to both Christian and non-Christian. If you are a human being, you "walk in

the flesh.”

But when he denies waging spiritual war "according to the flesh" (again, sarx) he has in mind not merely

the physical body or our common lot as men and women but human methods and means and resources as

over against those that derive from God and are compatible with the values of the spiritual realm. "Paul

concedes, of course, that the world is his sphere of activity; but that does not mean the world dictates the

agenda, still less that it provides the tools for the job" (Carson, 41). More about what that entails in a

moment.

Note also that after affirming he "walks" or lives in the flesh he then changes verbs and denies that he

"wages war" according to the flesh. If nothing else, this adds an edge to his response to the accusation that

he was a weak and timid man. Make no mistake about it, says Paul. I am in the midst of an on-going

battle, a fight, a war, and because of God's powerful presence in me I'm more than up to the task (on the

Christian life as war, see Rom. 13:12; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:11-17; Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:18;

6:12; 2 Tim. 2:3-4; 4:7; Philemon 2).

What precisely would his enemies have had in mind in making the accusation that he pursued his ministry

as an apostle "according to the flesh"? As strange as it may sound, from what we've already seen in 2

Corinthians and will later read in chapters eleven and twelve, they likely meant his lack of verbal

eloquence, his alleged reliance on self-commendation, his bodily weakness, his choice not to accept

money for his labors, as well as the absence from his resume of supernatural encounters and ecstatic

revelatory experiences.

But let's turn for a moment to the present day. While acknowledging the obvious, namely, that all humans

live "in the flesh," what might be the modern day equivalent to laboring "according to the flesh" in a way

that is displeasing to the Lord?

7

As I look across the broad expanse of ministry styles and the values that govern them, ten "worldly" or

"fleshly" things come to mind. I'll only briefly note them, and then turn to their opposites.

Much of so-called ministry today is driven by (1) pragmatism, the notion that if a method or strategy is

effective in attaining what are thought to be legitimate goals, that in itself legitimizes the method even

though it may be ethically questionable or even explicitly unbiblical.

Far too many in church life are motivated by (2) self promotion and make their decisions and formulate

their theology based on what they believe will most greatly enhance their position. Others are driven by

(3) good old fashioned (or should I say bad old fashioned) greed. The so-called prosperity gospel and the

manipulative and deceitful tactics of many TV evangelists are illustrative of this.

Others fixate so completely on (4) quantity that any message or ministry that threatens numerical increase

is cast aside, even though it may be profoundly biblical. For some, (5) comfort dictates how they proceed.

They make their choices based on what most effectively preserves ease of life and reinforces their sense

of control and the tranquility of their surroundings.

Far too many are personally ambitious and the specter of (6) power shapes what they do. Whatever

enhances their grip on the church or elevates theirinfluence in the congregation is most highly prized.

Related to this is the allure of (7) fame and the often associated fear of having one's voice muted and

being marginalized within the broader body of Christ.

When we turn to the standards or ideas that give shape to how we pursue life in the body of Christ, many

are guided by (8) human ingenuity or the fanciful, even if unbiblical, ideas that pop into their heads (what

D. A. Carson refers to as "glib how-to formulas for instant spiritual maturity and material prosperity"

[52]). Then there is the influence of (9) secular values or the findings of the latest public opinion poll, or

perhaps worse still the underlying philosophy of (10) naturalism that largely rules out the supernatural

realm of God's activity among us.

As pessimistic or cynical as that may sound, we have to be realistic about how far ranging and widespread

such factors are. They constitute a modern day equivalent to waging war "according to the flesh," the

avoidance of which demands our constant vigilance.

On the flip side, if only briefly, we must be governed not by pragmatism but by biblical principle; not by

self promotion but by a Christ-centered passion; not by greed but contentment with what we have; not by

a concern for quantity but a commitment to quality and spiritual excellence; not by what enhances our

comfort but by a willingness to suffer for Christ's sake; not by a hunger for power but a recognition that in

our weakness the glory of God is most seen; not by a hankering after fame but a willingness to labor

in anonymity if only Christ is known; not based on the best ideas that men can conjure up but in

conformity with the wisdom that comes from above; not by the preferences of a world that denigrates

revelatory truth but in accordance with the moral values of God's Word; and not as if physical reality is all

there is but in recognition of the power of the unseen spiritual realm.

And why should we find comfort in the merely human and material weapons this world affords when, as

Paul says in v. 4, our weapons are "not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds"?

This phrase translated "divine power" has been variously interpreted, all of which are both possible and

carry significant meaning. Among the options are that our weapons are "made powerful by God," or

perhaps are "divinely" or "supernaturally powerful," or are "powerful in God's perspective," or even are

"powerful for God" or "in God's cause" or with a view to achieving God's purpose.

8

In any case, on any view, our weapons work! They are divinely effective. They get the job done because

God works in and through them to accomplish his purposes. D. A. Carson has summed it up best in the

following comment:

"The contrast Paul is drawing must not be overlooked. He is not comparing, say, tanks, rifles, and missiles

with prayer, fasting, and preaching. The fleshly or worldly side of the contrast depends on the

interpretation of 2 Corinthians 10:3-4a - worldly weapons in this context are the kinds of tools of the trade

relished by the intruders: human ingenuity, rhetoric, showmanship, a certain splashiness and forwardness

in spiritual pretensions, charm, powerful personal charisma. Such weapons they will not find in Paul's

arsenal, so they think him inferior; but Paul responds by openly disavowing such weapons. He would not

want to defend himself on that score, for his weapons are of an entirely different sort. They are spiritual

weapons, and they are divinely powerful" (46).

What these weapons are and what they actually achieve remains to be seen as we proceed through this

paragraph. But of greatest importance now is for us to recognize the futility and vanity of trusting in

anything other than the spiritual resources and moral values and theological truths that God has made

available and entrusted to us. Let us not be swept up in the shallow and man-centered ways and means of

so much so-called "church" life today.

We can't escape living in the flesh any more than Paul could. But nothing compels us to wage war

according to the flesh other than our own delusional, self-serving, and prideful ambitions.

CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS: “Super” Spirituality and a Call for Discernment

(2 Cor. 10:7)

The Christian world is all abuzz about leadership these days. Take a look at any list of best-selling books

and you'll find at least three or four of the top ten that are concerned with some aspect of leadership,

whether in identifying the essence of the good and successful sort or in warning of the bad. It's the latter

that I'd like to briefly address in this meditation.

I'm sickened, as I'm sure you are, by the almost daily barrage of news concerning either the self-serving,

authoritarian practices of some professed Christian leader or the moral scandal that has befallen yet

another. Where do these people come from? How do they manage to attain such lofty heights of praise

and power? Why do people grant them such unqualified allegiance? What accounts for their ability to

amass so much wealth and fame and authority over the lives of their followers?

Don't be misled. I'm not talking about the obvious and notorious cult figures such as David Koresh or Jim

Jones or the leaders of certain polygamous groups who have been much in the news of late. I have in

mind local church pastors and leaders of para-church ministries as well as those who have risen to fame

and fortune on the waves of "revival" movements and other sensational and supernatural spiritual

happenings.

Countless theological and sociological studies have examined such folk in an effort to understand the

source of their power and the secret to their allure. I've read a few of them myself and they've often been

spot on target. Amidst the variety of explanations for their success, one is common to all, which brings us

to our text in 2 Corinthians 10.

However, before noting Paul's comments, let me differentiate between the sort of authoritative and self-

aggrandizing "shearer of the sheep" that the apostle confronted in the church at Corinth and the truly

gifted and godly pastor of today's mega-church. My words that follow are not intended to indict those

9

who, through faithful and diligent service, have built large churches and gathered zealous disciples. Not

all forms of success are bad! Quite a few prominent leaders whose ministries have drawn thousands of

devoted followers are to be honored and emulated. They are not the focus of my concern or the target of

my criticism.

I have in mind the aggressive, self-righteous, supremely self-confident person whose alleged authority

borders on legalistic control. This is the person whose flamboyant style, charismatic personality, and

sheer energy of will seduce his followers into suspending their critical faculties and throwing discernment

to the wind. This sort of "leader" does not humbly serve and sacrifice for the flock but expects them

(without necessarily saying so) to supply him with financial blessings and a wide array of other perks and

privileges. This individual is typically unaccountable and not held to the same standard that he requires of

his ardent devotees.

So what explains this remarkable mystique? Why do so many fall prey to such claims? To what does this

sort of "leader" appeal as the reason why he should be treated with such extraordinary respect and

devotion? Look at Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 10:7 for at least one answer to our question:

"Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ's, let him remind himself that

just as he is Christ's, so also are we" (v. 7).

The NASB renders the opening words of v. 7 as a statement of fact: "You are looking at things as they are

outwardly." More likely this is a command: "Look at what is before your eyes."

What they are to look at and from which they are to draw appropriate conclusions would include such

things as the fact that they are themselves the fruit of Paul's labors, bearing witness to the authenticity of

his calling as an apostle (see 1 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:1-3); that Paul "belongs" to Christ (as do his co-

workers and all believers) no less than the intruders; that his authority came from Christ and was always

exercised for the building up of the Corinthians; and that his actions and words were not incompatible, as

some alleged, but were always aimed at the same goals, being prompted by the same motives.

The "anyone" of v. 7 likely "points to a particular individual, the ringleader of the Judaizing intruders who

expressed the viewpoint of them all" (Harris, 688). But what precisely is it that this representative figure

is claiming, on the basis of which he and like-minded others are challenging Paul's authority?

This man is claiming, literally, to be "of Christ.” The genitive is certainly possessive, thus suggesting that

he promoted himself as one who belonged to the Lord in some unique and special way. Several

suggestions have been made concerning the precise nature of this statement.

Some contend that they were claiming to be Christians and insisting Paul was not. But this is highly

unlikely. As radically opposed to him as they were, there's no indication in the letter that they questioned

his salvation.

Some say these opponents claimed to belong to the "Christ party" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12 (where

some said, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ"). But would

Paul have responded to such a claim by saying he is of the Christ party no less than they? Given his strong

denunciations of the schismatic spirit in Corinth, he would hardly now have endorsed it!

Others suggest they were appealing to an earthly relationship with Jesus. They knew him during the time

of his sojourn but Paul didn't, thus putting them at an advantage to him. But in v. 7b Paul claims to have

no less a relation to Jesus, and we know he had no personal contact with the Lord until after the ascension,

most likely on the road to Damascus.

10

Might it be a claim to have received a special commission from Jesus? But that is an assertion made only

by the "super apostles" (cf. 11:5) whom Paul does not address until the next chapter. Here he is dealing

with "insiders" who are critical of him because of his feeble previous visit and his frightening ("Severe")

follow-up letter (cf. 10:9-11).

The most likely interpretation is that they were asserting some special, ongoing relationship with Christ,

making their point with an obviously feigned humility. One can almost see a slight tilt of the head

together with just the right inflection of voice: "I am Christ's man. I belong to Jesus in a way you don't.

He has a higher interest in me than in you. He has a deeper affection for me than for you. I have access to

his mind and heart in a way that transcends whatever claims you might make. Therefore, I and a few

others have been given an authority and power and place above you and your co-workers."

In many such cases the person who stands center stage doesn't explicitly assert that he or she is the

recipient of special divine favor or revelatory insights worthy of only a chosen few. They would never

commit the tactical error of publicly promoting themselves as uniquely "anointed.” They simply do

nothing to disabuse their followers of such false perceptions. Their calculated silence is mistaken for

humility and their power base grows.

Is this not precisely the grounds on which so many today build their reputations and undergird their

authority? False and self-serving leadership that ultimately works to enhance the person's fame and

fortune is almost always the result of allowing people to think one has a unique and privileged

relationship with God, one that is unavailable to ordinary believers. It is frequently, if not most times,

grounded in the claim to supernatural experiences, whether angelic visitations or third heaven translations

or having heard the voice of God with a clarity and force beyond what any average Christian might

experience.

Let me say it as forcefully as I can: Beware of all such claims to a superior or "super" spirituality! Beware

of any suggestion that one has special knowledge or insights unavailable to others! Beware of those

whose only credentials are the visions they have allegedly seen or the angels with whom they have

allegedly conversed (cf. Col. 2:18)! [I say this as one who believes in the gift of prophecy, visions, and

angelic encounters.]

On the other hand, genuine, godly leadership that warrants your allegiance is built on character, not

charisma. It is grounded in virtue, not visions. Its appeal is the centrality of Christ, not displays of power

or heightened states of ecstasy. And at the heart of such authentic authority is the faithful proclamation of

a cross-centered, Christ-exalting gospel, which is to say, a preaching of "Jesus Christ as Lord" and

"ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4:5).

All of us, at some point or other, will have to "look at what is before our eyes" (v. 7a) and pass judgment

on the legitimacy of claims to spiritual authority. What criteria shall we employ? Upon reading the

following words of Charles Spurgeon, I think I now know:

"I have not the slightest desire to suppose that I have advanced in the spiritual life many stages beyond my

brethren. As long as I trust simply to the blood and righteousness of Christ, and think nothing of myself, I

believe that I shall continue to be pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ, that this joy will be in me, and that my

joy will be full" (cited by Carson, 65).

11

CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS: Religious Bullies and How to Avoid Them

(2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10)

As I've said many times, 2 Corinthians is a manual for Christian leadership. Paul would probably not

have expressed it in precisely those terms, but much of his effort in this letter is designed to identify for

the Corinthians the true nature of spiritual, God-given authority as over against the self-aggrandizing

agenda of those who passed themselves off as "apostles" of Christ.

The Corinthians had been duped. They had been deceived by a band of intruders whose ultimate aim was

self-promotion that often came at the expense of the very people they claimed to lead and serve. It was

both confusing and heartbreaking for Paul that these whom he had fathered in the faith had now given

their loyalty to men whose "leadership" was both overbearing and abusive.

You may recall the controversy surrounding George Barna's book, Revolution, and the three-part review

of it that I wrote when it first appeared (seewww.samstorms.com, Book Reviews). Those whom Barna

calledrevolutionaries, typically people who had abandoned involvement in a local church, cited as several

of the principal reasons their bad experience with pastoral one-upmanship, legalism, hierarchical

structures that quenched the Spirit, the exploitation of authority to promote one's personal agenda, and just

about every conceivable abuse and extreme in ministry that one can conceive.

Needless to say, I am as opposed to unbiblical perversions of pastoral authority as anyone. Nowhere, and

in no way, would I ever endorse "church" life that fosters, encourages, or tolerates this sort of sinful

behavior. But this does not mean that all spiritual authority is to be denied. The abuse of authority is never

a legitimate justification for its abolition.

One need only read 1 Peter 5:1ff. to see the quality of character and leadership required of those who

exercise pastoral authority. "Domineering over those" in their charge is explicitly condemned (v. 3). All

of us are familiar (some, all too painfully) with instances of self-serving, religious bullies who exploit

their title, pulpit, and ordination to promote their personal agendas and enhance their self-esteem.

As I wrote in my review of Barna's book, no matter how often or egregious the neglect of pastoral

responsibility and authority may be, the inspired and infallible instruction of the New Testament remains

unchanged: local churches are to be led by Elders who have been raised up by the Holy Spirit (Acts

20:28) and have fulfilled the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. By all means strive and

pray and aim for a humble, holy, Christ-exalting, sheep-serving leadership, but strive! I see not a syllable

of biblical justification for abandoning either the principle of pastoral authority or the local church itself

by appealing to some (or even many) who have abused it.

That being said, what ought genuine, Christ-given authority to look like? What is its aim? What should it

always avoid? Again, Paul's words must be given their due:

"For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for

destroying you, I will not be ashamed" (v. 8).

The time when the Lord "gave" Paul this authority was undoubtedly at his conversion and calling into the

apostolate. But we are less concerned with the "when" than the "what," or perhaps better still, the "why.”

Paul's purpose is beneficent. His authority has not been given to destroy others or to promote himself or

his own agenda or to insulate his life from the demanding work of ministry or to increase his financial

welfare or to insure physical comforts.

12

Of course, Paul isn't saying that he lacks the authority to discipline the unrepentant or that he would never

speak words of judgment that are initially painful. As Carson has noted, "He is not restricting himself to a

polite power-of-positive-thinking approach, committed above all to offending no one, not even the devil

himself. Rather, he is insisting that the central purpose of the authority entrusted to him is the edification

(the building up) of God's people" (67).

There are instances where Paul will destroy or tear down, as he's already noted in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

(where the same verb is used). Furthermore, sometimes one must dismantle a weak and shaky building to

construct in its place one that will withstand the winds and waves of change and spiritual danger. "As in

literal construction work," notes Harris, "‘demolition' may sometimes be a necessary prelude to the actual

building process" (694). That Paul anticipated this may be required is evident from 2 Corinthians 13:10

where he warns them that, unless they respond to his admonitions, he may be compelled to take serious

disciplinary action.

Yet, even in such a severe case as the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul instructed the church

"to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Cor. 5:5a), the ultimate aim of pastoral

discipline was "so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (v. 5b; cf. Jer. 1:10; 24:6).

So what does Paul mean when he defines the aim of authentic authority as "building up"? I can't imagine

a more important issue for the church today, especially given the proliferation of those claiming to be

apostles [not to suggest that the office of Apostle cannot exist in any form today]. I have in mind those

who are largely self-appointed, rather than anointed, who insert themselves into and over the lives of both

local churches and individual Christians. They typically insist that not to submit to their directives is

spiritual rebellion, or at least a sign of profound immaturity.

All too often the result is tragic, in which the voice of godly believers is muted and their contribution to

the life of the body is suppressed. The "destruction" which Paul mentions in v. 8 may be of the individual

Christian. They areshamed for not yielding to such "apostolic" oversight. They are marginalizedfrom any

significant involvement in the life of the church. Their growth isstunted and their zeal is quenched. And

private, often routine decisions aredictated to them by "shepherds" who clearly overstep their bounds.

Or in many cases the destruction is more corporate in nature. Divisions, schisms, and religious cliques

come to dominate the church scene. Elitism is common, where those calling for fidelity to the biblical text

are branded as arrogant and argumentative and devoid of "revelatory" insights that allegedly come only to

those who stand in special relationship to the Lord.

But Paul aims (as should we all) for the "building up" of both Christian and Church. He accomplished this

in his ministry (and we should in ours) by teaching and preaching "the whole counsel of God" (Acts

20:27) and by shaping the minds and hearts of God's people in accordance with it. He built up believers

by identifying false teaching that threatened to deceive and mislead them. He warned of the destructive

consequences of heresy. He did not retreat from the often uncomfortable task of calling them to

repentance and laboring to fashion their conduct in conformity with the revelation and character of God

himself.

He built them up by strengthening their resistance to temptation, laboring for their joy (2 Cor. 1:24) so

that the deceptive promises of the world, flesh, and the devil might lose their appeal when compared with

the all-sufficient satisfaction found in Christ. He expended himself on their behalf in order to produce a

depth of spiritual maturity lest they be thrown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). He aimed in

everything he did and said to facilitate their growth into Christ-likeness (see Col. 1:28).

Unlike his opponents in Corinth, he cared that they imitate him only so far as he imitated Christ (see 1

Cor. 11:1). His personal reputation was of no concern, nor his physical comforts, if only his spiritual

children might be served and sanctified by grace.

13

Many reading this meditation are even now under the influence of self-appointed "leaders," not unlike

those that plagued the church in first-century Corinth. If you are among them, I suspect that you are

confused and disheartened, wondering how to properly discern the character and intent of such folk.

May I suggest that you simply ask yourself these questions: Do they foster unity or deepen division? Do

they preach themselves or Christ as Lord? Do they promote self-effacing godliness or self-asserting

worldliness? Are they wholly submitted to the authority of Scripture or do they justify their beliefs and

behavior, as well as their expectations of you, by appealing to experience or supernatural encounters or

new revelatory insights? Or again, to use Paul's words, are you and your church built up or destroyed by

their actions?

Perhaps most important of all, when you look at them do you see Christ? Or is your perception of the

beauty of our Lord obscured by the pretentious, self-referential and overbearing posture assumed by some

person on a platform?

CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS: Boasting, Comparing, and Commending: A

Warning (2 Cor. 10:9-12)

Some people live for the opportunity to flaunt their skills and to speak of their multiple accomplishments.

They seize every opportunity to redirect conversation from what they believe are less important people

and trivial matters to a focus on themselves, be it their success or fame or status in the community. They

are not in the least hesitant to speak of their credentials and are quick to cite the educational degrees

they've earned and the gold plaques for distinguished service that hang conspicuously on the wall of their

office or living room.

But not Paul. He was a man who found it extremely distasteful, to the point of nausea, to speak of himself

or his qualifications or his achievements in service of the kingdom of God. If one is to boast, says Paul, let

him "boast in the Lord. For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom

the Lord commends" (2 Cor. 10:17-18). I'll have occasion to address this passage in a subsequent

meditation, but it brings up an issue that needs to be addressed now if we are to understand his comments

here in the second half of chapter ten.

Those familiar with 2 Corinthians are aware that toward the close of chapter ten and throughout chapter

eleven Paul does his fair share of boasting. He points to his Jewish heritage, his apostolic calling, his

many experiences in the service of Christ, and much of what he suffered for the sake of the saints. But

there is a sense in which he did it involuntarily, against his will, and only because his hand was forced by

the proud strutting of the intruders who threatened to undermine the faith of his spiritual children in

Corinth.

One need only take note of how many times and the variety of ways in which Paul parenthetically

apologizes for boasting. He pleads with the Corinthians to bear with him "in a little foolishness" (11:1).

He is happy to be regarded as "foolish" (11:16) and a "fool" (vv. 16 and 17; cf. 12:6) if such is necessary

to protect his flock. Twice he interjects amidst his boasting, "I am speaking as a fool" (v. 21) and "I am

talking like a madman" (v. 23). Yes, says Paul, "I have been a fool" in boasting of such matters, but "you

forced me to it" (12:11).

Perhaps the best way to make sense of his strategy is by citing the explanations of a few selected

commentators. So, note the following:

14

"Paul is very conscious that it is no business of an apostle, or indeed of any Christian, to praise himself.

Such self-commendation is only justified, in the present instance, because his affection for his converts is

so great, that he will go to almost any length to prevent them from becoming dupes of unscrupulous men,

and to keep them loyal to Christ" (Tasker).

"It is concern, loving anxious concern, for the spiritual welfare of those who are his children in Christ

which moves him so strongly - so much so that he is prepared to appear to indulge in what he calls 'a little

foolishness' by speaking about himself, in order to counteract the impact of the intruders who in their

foolishness have been extolling themselves" (Hughes).

"It is not the genuine Paul who figures here; it is Paul playing a part to which he has been compelled

against his will, acting in a character which is as remote as possible from his own. It is the character

native and proper to the other side; and when Paul . . . assumes it . . . he not only preserves his modesty

and his self-respect, but lets his opponents see what he thinks of them. He plays the fool for the occasion,

and of set purpose; they do it always, and without knowing it, like men to the manner born" (Denney).

Now that we have in mind the strategy Paul is forced to employ, we can return to our text in chapter ten.

"I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and

strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.' Let such a person understand that

what we say by letter when absent, we do when present. Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves

with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another

and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding" (2 Cor. 10:9-12).

In an earlier meditation I mentioned that one of the charges against Paul was that of duplicity, "of phony

boldness: he manages to present a brave front by using his gifted pen, but when Paul the man is assessed

he turns out to be far inferior to his writings" (Carson, 63; see my comments on 10:1).

There is a measure of truth in this. We know that Paul's letters were theologically deep, morally

demanding, and often hard to understand (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). His personal demeanor, on the other hand,

lacked the flare and charisma that his opponents insisted were the badges of authenticity. But it's

important to remember, as Carson points out, that this most likely "sprang from his commitment to

eschew gimmickry and persuasive eloquence (1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1-5) in order that the faith of his converts

might rest, neither on his personality nor on his rhetoric, but on the power of God" (62). Then again, Paul

is quick to warn them that he is more than ready and able to assert the rightful authority given him by

Christ when he finally arrives in Corinth (v. 11; cf 10:2).

It is, however, from v. 12 that an important lesson is to be learned. There Paul writes:

"Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves.

But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are

without understanding" (v. 12).

Paul's in a bit of a pickle. His enemies have forced him to defend himself, in the course of which he is

exposed to the charge of self-commendation. It's hard, even for Paul, to do the former without sounding

like the latter.

This isn't to say that it's impossible to judge between competing claims. What frustrates Paul is how these

intruders go about it. They don't measure themselves by the objective criteria given us in the gospel and

the Scriptures, but look to each other, draw comparisons, and smile with how impressive they appear!

"Apparently these self-promoted apostles compared notes on their visions, their racial and cultural

pedigrees, their training in rhetoric, their abilities to command fees and lead men - all relative criteria of

little importance in God's eyes" (Carson, 73).

15

Paul is being openly sarcastic. He says, in effect, "These people set up their own conduct as a standard of

excellence and then find their conformity to it eminently satisfying and reassuring. These people are

charter members of their own mutual admiration society!" Paul will, in fact, classify and compare himself

with these intruders later on (2 Cor. 11:21-12:13). But he will do it in a radically different and surprising

way. He will point to his superiority in ministry through a display of weakness.

What's important for us to take from this passage is the ever-present danger that exists in the church to

measure our "success" and thus our personal "value" by comparing ourselves with others, whether they be

in ministry or in secular society. But the only standard that matters is the approval of God. The only

commendation that counts is his word of praise.

How often do you observe the spiritual gifts of others, their personality, their fame, their finances, their

status in the body of Christ, only then to compare yourself in each dimension and draw the unwarranted

conclusion that you are either extremely successful or a manifest failure? The only two possible results

from imitating the enemies of Paul in Corinth are pride or bitterness (or just as easily, arrogance or envy).

People will have accomplished more and you will resent them for it, or they will have accomplished less

and you will congratulate yourself for a job well done.

In any case, seeking commendation from anyone other than God or judging ourselves by any standard

other than "allegiance to the gospel of Christ, growing conformity to the character of Christ, [and]

participation in the sufferings of Christ" (Carson, 73) will prove fatal in the end.

By all means boast! But boast in the Lord (v. 17).

CHAPTER TEN MEDITATIONS: Is All Boasting Bad? (2 Cor. 10:13-18)

The familiar saying, "It ain't boasting if you can do it," is not only grammatically wrong; it is profoundly

dumb. Boasting is proudly drawing attention to oneself by claiming credit for some accomplishment. It is

the self-centered attempt to elicit from others praise of oneself for having attained some goal or having

measured up to an acknowledged standard. It does not cease to be boasting simply because it's true. If

you can't do it and you boast, you lie. If you can do it and you boast, you may well be telling the truth.

But boasting it is.

Evidently, the apostle Paul didn't believe that all boasting is bad. His use of the term was slightly different

from ours. He actually envisioned a form of boasting that was not motivated by pride, but by love. It all

depended on the object of one's boast and the ultimate intention of one's heart. Let me explain.

As we saw in the previous meditation, Paul felt compelled against his will to speak of his apostolic

credentials and the accomplishments of his ministry. This wasn't to enhance his reputation or status

among the Corinthians but to protect them against the false teaching and destructive influence of the

intruders in their congregation. When it was a matter of their spiritual welfare, Paul was happy to

commend himself (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-6). If it came down to whom they would trust and whose teaching they

would believe, Paul was quick to establish his rightful claim as an apostle of Christ Jesus and the one to

whom revelatory truth had been given.

These "false apostles" had forced his hand. So, boast he will, but only in accordance with the standards

that God had established. Thus he writes,

"But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God

assigned to us, to reach even to you. For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach

you. We were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ. We do not boast beyond limit

in the labors of others. But our hope is that as your faith increases, our area of influence among you may

16

be greatly enlarged, so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work

already done in another's area of influence" (2 Cor. 10:13-16).

The intruders in Corinth were proud for having measured up to a standard they created for themselves (v.

12). They measured "themselves by one another" and compared "themselves with one another" and

boasted about their obvious success! Not only that, but they took credit for what Paul had accomplished

by the grace of God in Corinth. They were only too happy to insist that the spiritual progress of the

Corinthians was due to their own exalted efforts. In other words, their boasting was beyond proper limits

because it was centered on themselves rather than on God, "it lacked a divine standard and divine

authorization (v. 13), and it concerned work accomplished by others (Paul) (v. 15) in foreign territory

(Paul's) (v. 16)" (Harris 710).

These "petty little men," notes Carson, "could not approach the high standards that characterized Paul's

ministry; yet somehow they gave themselves such airs that they managed to seduce much of the

Corinthian church. Little men can be dangerous, especially when they position themselves in such a way

as to capture some stolen glory from great men, and forge it into the bangles of self-interested leadership"

(77).

Paul, on the other hand, refused to take credit for the labors of others. He would only speak of his ministry

in that arena of influence apportioned to him by God, which was inclusive of Corinth. When converted

and called to the apostolate, God gave Paul a distinct assignment. He was to be the apostle to the Gentiles,

proclaiming the gospel among the nations who had hitherto been excluded from the blessings of the

covenants and who languished in spiritual darkness (cf. Gal. 1:16; 2:7-10).

This doesn't mean he was prohibited from proclaiming the gospel to Jews. In fact we know from the book

of Acts that he did precisely that. But his primary task was preaching the cross of Christ among the

Gentiles, which included the Corinthians. Even then, however, he was diligent to give all praise to God

and to speak only of "what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience" (Rom.

15:18). Boasting in what God has done througha person is one thing. Boasting in that same person is quite

another altogether.

But my principal concern is Paul's exhortation concerning the proper grounds and goal of Christian

boasting:

"'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.' For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved,

but the one whom the Lord commends" (2 Cor. 10:17-18).

Paul is alluding here to Jeremiah 9:23-24, the full text of which reads as follows:

"Thus says the Lord: ‘Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his

might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands

and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For

in these things I delight, declares the Lord.'"

Let me begin with two brief observations. First, the "Lord" in whom we are to boast is probably a

reference to Jesus, as a comparison with 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 and Philippians 3:3 suggests. Second,

boasting "in the Lord" may be regarded as "shorthand for the character and deeds of the Lord" (Harris,

725). Our boast, therefore, must be in the beauty of Christ's person and the majesty of who he is, together

with a celebration of what he has done in grace and kindness and power and compassion.

Thus, if boasting has for its object or focus the person of Christ and what he has accomplished for us, it is

certainly permissible. More than permissible, it is essential. This, indeed, is the essence of worship:

17

bragging on God, making known his sufficiency, drawing attention to what he is like and how he loves

and the way he so gloriously governs the world.

But there is a way of boasting in God that can be truly annoying. I have in mind what so often happens

when you thank another believer for some good deed done or draw attention to their sacrificial service or

a notable accomplishment on behalf of the church. They will often respond: "Oh, it wasn't me. It was

God. I can't take any credit for anything. All the glory is his" (often spoken with a lowering of the eyes, a

slight downturn of the head, and in a softer tone of voice).

Well, o.k. I understand. But sometimes, when someone congratulates us or expresses gratitude for a job

well done, we need to simply say, "You're welcome." That's not necessarily an expression of pride, any

more than it is always an expression of humility to verbally defer all praise to God. Yes, God is ultimately

the source of whatever strength we experience in the fulfillment of his will. But to mention that on every

occasion can be a subtle way of drawing attention once again to yourself. You may not hear them say it,

but people will often turn away after such a conversation, thinking: "I wish he'd just show the common

courtesy of saying ‘You're welcome' and not feel he has to theologize every utterance. If I didn't know

better, I'd swear he was proudly drawing attention to his humility."

This may seem like a strange place to mention Jack Bauer and the TV suspense drama, 24, but I've

learned an important lesson in watching him. On several occasions when President David Palmer thanked

him for saving his life or the lives of others, or for making a painful sacrifice, Jack never shuffled his feet

while meekly responding, "Ah, shucks, it was nothing." Instead, he looked President Palmer in the eyes

and courteously said, "You're welcome, Sir." There's nothing boastful or arrogant in that. If, on the other

hand, Jack had himself brought his deeds to the attention of Palmer and others, making much of his stellar

performance, one might wonder about the authenticity of his humility.

As for the Christian, we should avoid rehearsing for others the many things we've achieved. We should

desist from citing our extraordinary wisdom or heroism or education or wealth. When we are the first to

speak, it is good and right to acknowledge the power and sufficiency of divine grace operative in our

lives. It is good and right, as was the case with the apostle Paul, to boast only of "what Christ has

accomplished" through us (cf. Rom. 15:18). This is the boasting of which Paul approves.

But when others show us the courtesy of complimenting our efforts, or express gratitude for our labors,

show them the courtesy of saying, "You're welcome," all the while you quietly, yet consciously, say to

yourself, "by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10a). And when it comes your time to speak,

boast in him. Brag on him. Speak in such a way that people are impressed with who he is, and soon forget

your name.

Adapted from “A Sincere and Pure Devotion to Christ,” by Sam Storms. Used by permission. Also, available online at http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/studies/meditations-on-2-corinthians/