What does it mean to do something in Jesus' name?

This is the second post I wrote on my week on the Valley Community Church Bible blog last month. It is reprinted in its entirety below. Please feel free to check out the other posts on that blog; a different church member writes about a different passage of Scripture every day!

Mark 9-10

Jesus tells his disciples, "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39). But consider the hypothetical false disciples Jesus rebukes in the Sermon on the Mount. "'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers"'" (Matthew 7: 21-23). What a disconcerting image! The central question, then, seems to be what does it mean to do something in Jesus' name?

First, let's consider what doing something in Jesus' name is not. For instance, it is possible to claim to be doing something on God's behalf when you are really seeking your own glory. The sons of Sceva, a Jewish priest, were caught doing this in Acts 19. They "tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed" (Acts 19:13) but were beaten badly by the demon-possessed man for their trouble. You see, when it comes to our heart and our motives, there is no fooling God. "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve" (Jeremiah 17:10).

 Contrast their example with the woman who touched Jesus' clothes and was healed. Matthew tells us she touched the "edge" of the garment (Matthew 9:20). Remember that God long ago commanded the Israelites "To make tassels on the corners of your garments" (Numbers 15:38), and it was this part of Jesus' cloak that the sick woman touched. Why is that important? Because the woman knew Malachi 4:2, "The sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays." The word "rays," sometimes also translated "wings," is the same word rendered as "tassels" in Numbers 15:38. The woman believed that Jesus was who he said he was and this led her to claim God's promise of healing from Malachi 4:2 by touching Jesus' cloak. And healed she was; Jesus turned, sought her out from the crowd, and told her, "Take heart, daughter ... your faith has healed you" (Matthew 9:22). In this way God was glorified, that His Son was recognized and worshiped for who he really was.

When we do things in Jesus' name, therefore, we are claiming God's promises that He might be glorified. God makes promises as a way of showing His faithfulness and as a way of bringing glory to Himself. When we claim these promises, we are acknowledging and even praising Him as a faithful, trustworthy, and sovereign God. 

Jeremiah and the "Health and Wealth Gospel"

I wrote the following seven posts for the Valley Community Church Bible blog during the week of April 14, 2013. I am reprinting them here in their entirety; please enjoy and leave a comment if you feel so led.

Jeremiah 12-16
 

Jeremiah begins this passage with a beleaguered complaint. "Yet I would speak to you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease" (Jer 12:1)? Without delay, Jeremiah brings up what might be called "The anti-health and wealth Gospel." The health and wealth Gospel is the teaching--often mocked and deservedly so--that God will shower you with material things because His chief desire is that you be happy and prosperous in this life. The anti-health and wealth Gospel, then, is the complaint that God seems to be favoring with material success those who do not profess and follow Him.

When you think about it, the anti-health and wealth Gospel really isn't the opposite of the health and wealth Gospel. In fact, there's actually no difference between the two at all. In the end, complaining about someone else's state is nothing more than a tacit expression of bitterness about your own. Jeremiah isn't upset that the wicked and faithless are doing well; he's upset that they're doing better than he is.

Jeremiah isn't the only Old Testament figure to voice complaints like these (see Job 21, Malachi 3). So how does God respond to him? By telling him that things are only going to get worse (Jer 12: 5-6). It's a similar answer to the one Job receives, and a superficially unsatisfying one at that. But when you dig deeper, it becomes clear that God is gently helping Jeremiah to recalibrate his perspective. God's enemies will be destroyed in the end (Jer 12: 7-17), and in the meantime, we need to spend a little less time worrying about the worldly balance sheet of our enemies and a little more time focusing on our own relationship with God. And if we want to have concern about our enemies' spiritual lives, that too is a commendable goal. Indeed, what could be more important than the spiritual welfare of ourselves and our (potential) brothers and sisters in Christ?

Job and free will

Do human beings have free will? Volumes have been written on this subject from every conceivable angle, and Christianity is no exception. Numerous Bible verses address, appear to address, or are claimed to address the question of whether or not we have free will. And yet broad consensus remains elusive (perhaps because people are all too mindful that stripped of proper context, the Bible can be made to support or oppose nearly everything; as a result they are unwilling to allow it to say anything at all). In any event, I humbly offer my view on the subject.

The book of Job offers a compelling argument in favor of free will. At the outset of the book, God praises Job to Satan as "A man who fears God and shuns evil" (Job 1:8). Satan, however, accuses God of "stacking the deck." He asserts that God protects and favors Job, so that there is no reason for Job to be anything but obedient. But take away Job's material comfort and blessings, Satan says, and Job will soon enough turn against God. And so God permits Satan to put his theory to the test.

Simply depriving Job of his many possessions proves insufficient, though, and Satan returns to God unsatisfied. "A man will give all he has for his own life," he complains. "But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face" (Job 2: 4-5). Once again, God consents to Satan testing Job, although He stipulates that Satan's torments may not extend to the deadly.

Satan's central premise is that Job's love for God is really love of self. Job loves God because God makes his, Job's, life comfortable and pleasant. If God were to withdraw the comfort, Job would turn against God. But this is only possible if Job is free to choose whether to praise or curse God. If Job did not have free will, God could simply dictate his responses, thereby invalidating the whole enterprise. Satan knows this but pushed for the contest anyway. The only conclusion, therefore, is that Satan knew that Job possessed the free will necessary to make this decision for himself.

Why the new pope is good for all of Christianity

Two weeks ago Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected the 266th Pope. Bergoglio, who will be called Francis, was selected on just the second day of deliberations. More than a billion people worldwide identify themselves as Roman Catholic. That alone qualifies Francis's selection as noteworthy, but the importance of this moment transcends denominational lines. This is a pregnant moment for Christianity as a whole.

Like Easter and Christmas, the selection of a new pope offers Christianity a unique moment in the mainstream spotlight. This is a golden opportunity for an energetic discussion of all manner of subjects. Homosexuality and gay marriage, the role of women in the vocational ministry, and even the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, to name just three, are culturally relevant topics that can have eternal implications. Christians everywhere should embrace the chance to spark conversation and critical thinking about some of the biggest questions facing Christianity today.

New honor for Dartmouth

Earlier this month the Orozco Murals at Dartmouth College were recently designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service (you can read more about it here). Officially titled "The Epic of American Civilization," the mural was completed after two years of effort by Mexican artist Jose Clemente Orozco. Located in the Reserve Reading Corridor in Baker-Berry Library, the mural has impressed and inspired (and thoroughly creeped out) students since its completion in 1934. It is a must-see for any first-time visitors to campus!

Dartmouth has commissioned a number of peculiar pieces of artwork in recent years (the large rectangles adorning the side of the Hopkins Center spring to mind). Nevertheless, it is gratifying to see a culturally and artistically significant piece of art be recognized by the National Park Service. What's more, the mural was recently renovated, so it is in impeccable condition to receive what will hopefully be even greater public and student interest.

Staying in Hanover, the Dartmouth baseball team has gotten off to a torrid start this spring. Their record is currently 11-1, which is the best twelve-game start they've ever had. Not only that but they began the season 8-0 before losing to Slippery Rock on March 20. That made them the final unbeaten team in Division I this year. Go Big Green!

The double-edged sword of evidence-based medicine

EMS has gotten swept up in the evidence-based medicine craze in recent years. This is not at all a bad thing; on the contrary, it is probably the clearest path forward for a field that is continually locked in a struggle to carve out and maintain an identity within the healthcare community. There lurks danger, though, in becoming too dependent on only one mode of analysis and progressive impetus. This danger is primarily one of methodology and not of substance, but EMS leaders would nevertheless be wise to understand the limitations of evidence-based medicine. Like any other tool at the EMS provider's disposal, its capabilities must be exploited without losing sight of its shortcomings.

Years ago, a paramedic coworker loudly declared, "There has never been a single study that demonstrated any benefit to taking people to the hospital." This individual was particularly fond of loud declarations, but in this case he was spot on. It stands to reason that you should go to the hospital if you get sick or injured. but can you use statistics to demonstrate its superiority? That is, after all, the essence of evidence-based medical practice.

A popular anecdote among EMS providers is the 1998 study that tracked the outcomes of two groups of patients, one in New Mexico and one in Malaysia, who were transported after suffering spinal injuries. The patients in New Mexico were all placed in cervical collars and secured to backboards by EMS whereas the Malaysian group was not given the benefit of such "advanced" treatment. Guess which group had a lower incidence of permanent neurological deficits?

The spinal immobilization study is very much a success story for evidence-based medicine; selective spinal immobilization protocols have since been developed and promulgated widely. In my view, and that of more than a few training officers and medical directors, this is a huge step forward for EMS providers and the patients we treat. Score one for research.

But let's get back to the fact that we transport people to the hospital at all. There will never be a study that proves the benefit of transporting patients to the hospital because there will never be a study that even considers whether or not we should transport patients. Who would volunteer for the control group? "Well, Mrs. Smith, it appears you're suffering from acute pulmonary edema secondary to a CHF exacerbation. Unfortunately, you've been placed in the 'control group,' so we're not going to take you to the hospital today. Just keep gurgling away when you inhale and maybe some air will get in there. Have a nice day!" Common sense dictates that we transport patients to the hospital, and we will continue to do so--at least for high-acuity patients--as long as there is such a thing as EMS.

So does that mean that we should rely on reason and intuition to guide treatment protocols? Of course not. Just look at the evolution of cardiac arrest protocols: I've been in EMS for the better part of a decade now, and I've already seen several sea changes in the way cardiac arrests are managed (the changes in compression-to-ventilation ratios and the introduction of prehospital therapeutically-induced hypothermia leap to mind). There are providers out there with four times my level of experience who could describe countless more steps in the evolution of cardiac arrest management. The point is that as research sheds additional light on the pathophysiology of cardiac arrest, our treatment protocols are updated to match current understanding. And rinse and repeat. There is simply no other way to advance our understanding and treatment of that condition or many others.

How do we resolve the tension between letting research guide us forward while not getting paralyzed by the obsessive need to gather research to prove the unprovable? Fortunately the answer is simple: This is not a tension that needs resolving. Use research to gather as much information about as many pathologies and treatments as possible. Embrace whatever benefit can be gleaned from such study. But don't forget a liberal application of common sense to know what can and cannot be improved through scientific research. If we get too caught up in worshiping at the altar of evidence-based medicine, we lose sight of the fact that research is supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

Good books with bad endings?

A few months ago, Joan Acocella posted to The New Yorker's website a blog post lamenting the disappointing endings of otherwise (and nevertheless) classic works of literature. Notwithstanding her ludicrous assertion that "Our country's greatest novel" is Huckleberry Finn--obviously Acocella has never read The Great Gatsby--she raises an interesting question about the effect of an unworthy ending on the value of a novel as a whole. She singles out Huckleberry Finn, David Copperfield, Wuthering Heights, and Song of the Lark for particular scorn, with special focus on the first of these, averring that the endings are not worthy of the body of writing they conclude.

One of Acocella's most astute points is to distinguish between endings that are "inartistic" and those that are simply disappointing. No one wants Islands in the Stream to end the way it does, but it's hard to argue that Hemingway crafts a masterful ending for the story of Thomas Hudson. David Copperfield's happily-ever-after, at least in Acocella's opinion, induces the reader to "Die of boredom." It is the latter category of ending that incurs Acocella's wrath because she feels they are "A betrayal of what came before."

One notable weakness in Acocella's article is that she doesn't embrace the question of "What might have been." The books she names are major, even seminal works by household-name authors. They have stood the test of time, bad endings and all. If they had been given endings commensurate to their erstwhile grandeur, what then? Would there be a new category of super-book where excellent beginnings and middles are completed by excellent endings?

Thus we have the fundamental problem with Acocella's mode of analysis. It's impossible to divorce the ending of a book from the novel as a whole. The quality of a book encompasses the value of all its constituent parts. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the end of a book--or any other part for that matter--but the creation of a sub-class of novel, the Great Book With a Really Bad Ending, is going too far.

On a separate but related note, a long-overdue congratulations to Louise Erdrich '76 for winning the 2012 National Book Award for Fiction for her novel The Round House. That makes two Dartmouth alumna to be honored with a National Book Award in the last five years (Annette Gordon-Reed '81 received the Nonfiction award in 2008 for The Hemingses of Monticello, which I had the great privilege to help work on when I was an editorial intern). Way to go!