A Punishing God?!

Texts about a punishing God from Revelation are difficult to interpret. On one hand, we see the culmination of salvation history—the bride prepared for the wedding in radiant white clothes. On the other hand, we have the image of Christ as a warrior, wearing a cloak soaked in blood at the head of the heavenly armies, who strikes down nations and presses the winepress of the Almighty God's avenging wrath. I probably wouldn’t choose this verse as the motto for my preaching office or as a vision for a church. Is this really the same Jesus and the same God we read about elsewhere in Scripture? Fighting, even punishing… couldn’t it be described differently? Without the clashing of weapons? You probably know the theories about two gods—the Old Testament God who is angry and harsh, and the New Testament God who is kind and loving. But it’s probably not that simple.

When we look at how God is sometimes presented in certain Christian circles, Richard Niebuhr’s statement sums it up well, a statement he made in connection with liberalism as a kind of credo for that movement: “An unwrathful God brought a sinless man into a kingdom without judgment by preaching without a cross.”

But the image Scripture gives us is different. We read about a God who gets angry, about humans who sin, about judgment and the cross. Even about hell and eternal condemnation. This is not an invention of some bloodthirsty Christian fundamentalists, but this is what we read in the Bible, and it is also how many theologians and thinkers understand it. Miroslav Volf from Yale University wrote: If God did not get angry at injustice and lies and did not put a final end to violence, He would not be a loving God worth worshiping. Volf says violence arises from a lack of faith in God’s justice, because then we have to take matters into our own hands. Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz wrote: The real opium of humanity is the belief that after death there is nothingness. A deeply comforting thought—that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, and murders we will not be judged. C. S. Lewis wrote: There are only two kinds of people—those who say ‘Thy will be done, God’ and those to whom God will finally say: ‘So be it.’ Everyone in hell chose it themselves. Without choosing their own fate, hell would not be hell.

None of these mentioned thinkers would be classified as bloodthirsty fundamentalists. I wanted to support the words we read in our text from Revelation by citing theologians and thinkers who do not question the words about judgment, punishment, and conflict.

Looking at current theological discussions, one of the major topics is ethics. This discussion has partly come to light due to questions surrounding gender and homosexuality. I am not addressing these areas now, but I want to examine the positions from which many people argue. A basic argumentative premise in this area is: I have the right to do what I want, or better, what I feel—provided I do not harm anyone. And since God is kind, He must respect our private preferences. The idea that someone would judge my behavior belongs to the Middle Ages. Tim Keller comments that there are two intertwined cultural narratives: No one has the right to tell me how to live my life as long as I don’t harm others—this is the narrative of freedom; and then the narrative of identity: I must be true to myself and have the right to openly express my deepest desires and dreams regardless of others’ opinions. In short, the basis is my freedom and my sincerity.

Understandably, this narrative or this mindset penetrates the church as well, and talking about judgment, saying that something is wrong or right, declaring moral judgments is unacceptable to many—not only non-believers but also believers. All we need is love. Period. That is true, but does it mean that love equals approval of our preferences?

How then should we read these texts in this climate? Or should we just dismiss them as culturally conditioned?

Now, how does all this relate to the text we read? Did I stray too far?

I see three areas here: judgment—justice—conflict, not only here but spanning the whole book of Revelation.

About Jesus, it says He “judges and wages war righteously” (Rev 19:11).

Judgment—it is Jesus who judges here, not humans. But if we read about judgment and justice, it presupposes that truth, lies, good, and evil exist, and Jesus will assess and judge them. Of course, we are forgiven sinners, but grace is from sin, from the evil we commit. The criterion of evil is not what someone intended or sincerely felt. A clue may lie in how Jesus is named. John here returns to his Gospel and writes that His name is the Word of God. I know none of us have the final interpretation of God’s Word, and I know how so-called biblically believing Christians unintentionally discredit the Word by pretending they have the right interpretation, and on the other side, liberals who tend to deconstruct the texts. But this should not divert us from the desire, ambition, and effort to seek the truth in God’s Word. God will judge, but we—somewhat crudely called religious professionals—are tasked with bringing God’s truths to light, and how people respond is up to them. In this context, I think of Paul’s statement, “Let no one perish because of me.”

Justice. I have already quoted M. Volf. His books reflect his horrific experience of the Balkan wars in the 1990s, and this experience is imprinted on some of his works. Volf wrote about God’s justice: My claim that the practice of nonviolence requires faith in divine retribution will be unpopular in the West. But the emergence of the thesis that human nonviolence stems from faith in God’s refusal to judge requires the calm of suburban home life. In a sun-baked land soaked with innocent blood, this pleasant creation of liberal minds vanishes. Volf, in line with our text, says God will judge and that He is angry at lies and injustice. Therefore, we do not have to be ashamed of our desires, our thirst for God to overthrow Putin and establish justice. And it does not have to be only geopolitics but also our daily struggles. Here we might say, fine, one day it will come, God will enforce justice, but now we must endure. Yes, we will not overthrow Putin, but it makes sense already now to strive for justice, or thirst for justice. N. T. Wright put it beautifully: Whatever you do in the present—painting, preaching, embroidering, teaching, building hospitals, digging wells, fighting for justice, caring for the needy, loving your neighbor—will endure into God’s future. Everything we do is part of what we can call working on God’s kingdom. We are already working on what will be fully revealed in the texts we read in Revelation. Somehow our struggle for justice will endure into the world to come.

Conflict. Scripture ends with the New Jerusalem, but it is preceded by much conflict. Here we see the battle against the false prophet, who performed miraculous signs, against the beast; both were quite successful because many were deceived, many knelt before its image, and it performed miraculous signs. It’s not like Jesus comes with His angels and instantly executes judgment and wins the battle. It won’t just happen by itself. If we do not enter the fight, evil will prevail. A few years ago, I published a book How to Destroy the Church. To be authentic, I tried to put myself on the other side, truly take the side of evil. I wrote it on vacation and admit it ruined part of my vacation. I am thinking about a sequel, but I’m actually afraid. It scared me how much evil is even inside me, and I’d rather leave that closed somewhere. Why do I say this? We are part of a battle that we fight partly with ourselves but also for the church and God’s kingdom. And sometimes that means conflict. Just like it is here. I’m not saying that those who are conflictual are blessed or that the more conflictual you are, the holier you are, but that conflict and struggle belong in our ministry. Sometimes our preaching failures are that we went into conflict and shouldn’t have, but sometimes we should have gone into conflict and didn’t. We were just afraid the other side would crush us, or we were simply too comfortable. But even from this short passage, we see that victory precedes conflict and that the battle fought in heaven somehow reflects what we experience on earth.

Conclusion: We live in a world or social bubble where people rarely talk about judgment or truth. Maximum freedom is important, limited only by whether I harm others and whether I sincerely feel that. But Scripture speaks of judgment, justice, and conflict. Ultimately, all these belong to Christ, but we cannot resign ourselves from these issues. Therefore, we are called to seek the truth revealed in Scripture and Christ, to long for justice, and to engage in the fight. Of course, it hurts, but let us be comforted that in this battle we are with Christ, and I believe also with one another. May this pastoral reflection motivate us to enter the battle where we must, and also into the battle fought in prayer, in spiritual struggle.

Conflict

 

I don’t like conflicts and, in fact, I’m somewhat afraid of them, even though I sometimes cannot avoid them. J. White wrote that “no test in leadership is as difficult as conflict with opposition. A Christian leader under the stress caused by conflict can fall apart. Some quit because of it, others build a wall around themselves and start shooting deadly bullets from behind it.” When I was writing this book, I had the opportunity to meet a successful entrepreneur who also teaches leadership at a university. He asked me a question I honestly did not expect: What is the hardest thing for you in your leadership? After thinking for a while, I answered that it is conflict. He said he would answer the same. Sometimes I feel I entered certain conflicts unnecessarily, other times I avoided those I shouldn’t have. Sometimes I was too soft, other times too harsh. At the same time, I realized that conflicts are part of leadership, if only because we cannot and should not try to please everyone. The goal is not to avoid conflicts, but to learn how to resolve them. Many excellent materials have been written on this topic, not only from a leadership perspective. I will try to offer my view based on what I have observed in many congregations and experienced myself.

Conflict as a Virus
If relationships in a community are tense, paralysis occurs, manifested by people communicating with difficulty, avoiding each other, leaving gatherings, and much of the community life becoming crippled. Using the image of the church as a body (1 Cor 12), I would compare conflicts in the church to a body attacked by a virus. The body may seem functional at first glance, but what we previously did with ease and enthusiasm becomes a problem. If you come to services, the sermons, music, liturgy, and children’s ministry do not change, but beneath the surface, things are boiling.
I will try in the following lines to describe some people who undoubtedly mean well with the church and congregations but in their efforts and sometimes “holy zeal” destroy the community. I divided them into three groups.

Three Types of Conflict People, Three States of Water

Ice
The first group is hard, they have clear positions, rarely doubt themselves or their opinions, and can be loud. They usually have good argumentative skills, sometimes fondly recall “the good old church where people loved each other and there was order.” They turn congregational meetings into battlegrounds and do not think through the damage their sometimes harsh attacks on others cause. When it comes to truth, let the splinters fly!
They justify their sharp behavior by saying they fight for God’s matters, for the correction of the congregation and church, and that they really care about “the truth of truths.” Sometimes they write long emails that are razor-sharp and take a long time to digest. What is confusing about their argumentation is that in many things they are right, they like to argue with Scripture and church regulations, but their way of communicating hurts.
They are often or almost always dissatisfied, and woe to the leadership if they make a mistake! It is further proof of “incompetence,” “lack of love for the congregation and church,” “laziness,” etc. They are “genuinely believing brothers and sisters who mean well, but leave behind painful wounds and festering injuries. They are often loyal congregation members convinced they serve God faithfully, but in reality, they deal hard blows, leaving a scorched earth in interpersonal relationships both at home and in the congregation.”

Water
Compared to the first group, the second is more “fluid,” meaning the leader never really knows where they stand with them. They rarely choose direct confrontation, but work more behind the scenes, spending lots of time on phone calls or conversations with friends discussing congregational issues they dislike and especially the people they disagree with or who annoy them. Like the first group, they write emails, but usually not to those they disagree with, but about those they disagree with. They rarely enter into direct conflict. Instead, others, whom they have influenced, confront for them.
When they communicate with you, they usually start by saying they “really like” the person they are about to criticize, have “nothing against them,” and can even talk about them as “their friend for whom they pray,” which confuses others. Their communication, unlike the first group, is pleasant, but has a slippery, hard-to-grasp quality.

Gas
The third group appears somewhat ethereal. Sometimes in their arguments, they include the phrase “The Lord told me,” which excludes discussion beforehand because if the Lord told them, the Lord’s word cannot be questioned. On one hand, they eagerly expect God’s work and even pray for it; on the other hand, being around them makes you feel spiritually inferior.
If you have not had the same or at least similar spiritual experiences, they don’t really accept you. They rarely say it outright, but you feel it after a while. It’s not their experiences, thank God for them, but their immature character shows as their gained experiences lead to pride and ownership of the truth.

Why It’s Sometimes So Hard to Name Evil
What these three groups have in common is that they master Christian vocabulary well and do not hide their love for the Lord God and the community. But they love their ideal of the church and people more than the church and the people themselves. Sometimes they are Christians who are or were involved in their congregations, are devoted, often know the Bible well, sometimes even church regulations.
These people can unsettle leaders and call into question much of what is done in the congregation. You gradually realize that the problem is often not the issue itself but the communication style, sometimes very harsh, sometimes behind-the-scenes, and sometimes so spiritual it is actually unspiritual.
It’s also worth noting that these styles are easier to recognize in others than in oneself.
The Scripture describes how to proceed in admonishing (Mt 18:15–17). But there’s a problem. You can admonish when someone commits a clearly definable sin. For example, no one would dispute that hitting a spouse is a sin worthy of admonition, but naming passive aggression manifested by silence, one-word dismissals, or sarcastic remarks is difficult. Or what to do with someone whose hardness drives another to tears while saying “I only told the truth”? The victim fears further confrontation and seeks a third party to help. When the third party intervenes, they get scolded for “listening to gossip.” Suddenly, everything turns against the victim, but what was the victim supposed to do? Not everyone is strong enough to stand up well to an aggressively arguing person. What to do when you want to admonish someone and the response is “look at yourself first”? This is a universal weapon because everyone, leaders included, has some problem.
I want to show that evil and sin are not always clear and easy to recognize and define. Jesus talks about false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing (Mt 7:15). From this metaphor, it’s clear that sometimes we don’t recognize evil and its bearer at first sight. What to do about this?
I will try to write some concrete suggestions for both parties in a dispute, knowing some points will overlap.

Ten Tips on How to (Not) Handle Conflicts

Let’s accept that sometimes we will have to face unpleasant conflicts. Except for a few psychopaths, everyone fears conflict. We should be peacemakers, but if we are in leadership, sometimes there is no other way. On the contrary, it would be strange if we had no conflicts at all. It will hurt, it will be difficult, but those who cause unrest need boundaries set. Moreover, appetite grows with eating — if we stay silent, it won’t stop and will harm others.

First, let’s learn to talk about who we have conflict with before God, then directly with the person involved, not about one another behind backs. Sometimes we have to speak negatively about others; otherwise, the problem won’t be solved, but let’s reduce this to an absolute minimum (regarding positive news, on the other hand, there should be no limit). Always listen to the other side of the dispute, even if their arguments seem obvious. Some people can speak incredibly persuasively, others manipulate, and some are masters of both. To form a judgment, we need to know the whole context. Don’t judge until you’ve heard the other side.

Communicate face to face, which means sparing emails, text messages, and other electronic means. Personal meetings are always better. Long emails solve nothing. When we see the other person in person, we tend to be more careful with our words and can clarify much more. The same applies the other way around, regarding us. Never ventilate problems on social media.

Never solve problems at large meetings where most community members gather. A large crowd is the worst platform for resolving problems. Most people don’t have all the information, and leaders usually can’t say everything, which leads to misunderstanding and frustration.

How we communicate the problem matters a lot. Pulling out biblical verses that suit us, arguing “The Lord told me,” raising voices, dragging up past sins, and slandering never convince anyone but only corner or harden them. If we cannot communicate politely, calmly, and directly, we can say goodbye to the problem being solved—even if we are right.

Learn first to talk about others with the Lord, then directly with the person involved, not about others with others. Sometimes we must speak negatively about others, otherwise, the problem won’t be solved, but limit this to the bare minimum (regarding positive news, be unrestricted). Always speak directly to the other first; don’t rely on second-hand information, even if it seems more convincing. Sometimes a talk with witnesses is necessary—consider when to use this option.

Focus on the problem itself more than motives. In other words, avoid diagnosing why the person does what they do; don’t psychoanalyze (even if you are a psychologist). We can’t see inside another person, and rather than asking why they did this or that, let’s deal with the fact they did it. This doesn’t mean we should never ask why, but let’s be cautious.

Don’t revisit old wounds and injuries. If something in the congregation is closed, it’s closed—have the discipline to keep it closed. Sometimes that requires a lot of discipline. If something troubles us, it’s our problem; don’t burden the community. We can talk about it with someone but it’s not a topic for the whole congregation or a larger group.

Even though we fight for the community and for God’s things, don’t use forbidden weapons called intimidation, slander, backstage games, half-truths, etc. The end doesn’t justify the means in this case, and such backstage tactics usually come back to us. But even if they don’t, don’t do them simply because they are wrong and God won’t bless them.

Although this concerns specific people, the principle remains: we do not fight against flesh and blood... Therefore, pray and trust that God will keep our congregation, church, despite what we experience. Sometimes it doesn’t look that way, darkness can be very thick, but the church belongs to God, not to leaders—even if they are great.

So, just a few words about conflicts. I would wish this chapter to be unnecessary for readers because they won’t have to deal with conflicts. But I’m afraid my wish won’t be granted… So let’s at least handle conflicts wisely.

What are the key leadership qualities a leader should have, and by which we should select people for a team?

 

Let’s be careful about whom we bring into the team, and whom we approach for any leadership position. Let’s examine their character as thoroughly as possible. Also, it is better to not start something at all because of a lack of people than to have leaders of poor character. Keep in mind the words of K. Leman:
"Nothing undermines team spirit more than a spineless leader trying to play both sides."

The question is: what key character traits should we expect from leaders, and especially, what should we ourselves have if we lead? Before I try to name them, I want to emphasize that on the one hand we desire to be transformed by Christ, and on the other hand, we sin. But even this should not lead us to give up on certain character requirements for ourselves and for those who lead. And if you come up with qualities beyond those listed below, that’s great.

Willingness to admit mistakes and apologize.
This character trait comes from the core of the gospel, which is good news not for the perfect, but for the imperfect—who have become perfect before God through the perfect Son of God, who took on our sins that we have confessed and continue to confess. But there is a catch: many Christians can generally confess their guilt before God, but when it comes to admitting specific faults, they get stuck and either do not admit the mistake or do so only very generally, saying “we all make mistakes.” However, if failures are not named, no apology follows, and sin will likely grow like a sore. Someone said that naming something takes away its power over us. I don’t think this is an absolute truth, but it is partly true.
H. Nouwen describes confession and leadership like this:
"What discipline is needed for the leader of the future to overcome the temptation of individual heroism? I would suggest the discipline of confession and forgiveness. They must be persons constantly willing to confess their own vulnerability and ask forgiveness from those they serve. Confession and forgiveness are concrete ways in which we sinners serve one another. I often feel that priests and church servants are those who confess the least in Christian community."

Ability to control one’s tongue.
The body part most frequently mentioned in the Bible in connection with sin is the tongue. This may be surprising—we might expect other organs—but it really is the tongue. Proverbs says life and death are in the power of the tongue (Prov 18:21), and whoever guards their tongue guards their soul from trouble (Prov 21:23). James writes that the tongue is like a fire, a world of evil among our members, staining the whole body and setting the course of life on fire, itself set on fire by hell (Jas 3:6,8). This is not encouraging, but it does not mean we shouldn’t try to master our tongue. The power of the tongue is that it portrays who others are. If we hear about ourselves that we are proud, foolish, or incompetent, we will likely see ourselves that way. Likewise, when we hear such things about others. Conversely, if we hear we can do something, that we have value, and do not need to be afraid, such words have great power. If someone lies or speaks half-truths, reality cannot be built on their statements. If someone slanders, be sure they do the same about you behind your back. So let’s watch our tongues and be careful whom we choose as leaders based on how they use theirs.

Integrity — consistency of word and life.
“Integrity means being whole, undivided, not split. It describes a person who has unified the parts of their personality so that their soul is not divided. When your soul is divided, one part wants one thing, another part wants something else. A person with integrity whose soul is not fragmented can do great things by focusing all their energy on one goal: deciding what is right and doing it. All other considerations come second.”
During the 2000 US presidential election, writer J. Fallows asked: What makes a person a true leader? What marks a person others want to follow? His answer: “A sense of wholeness.” That is, a feeling that this person is one piece, that they are consistent and will be the same tomorrow as today.”
The integrity of a leader gives people confidence to trust them. Without trust based on integrity, you can manipulate people for some time but not truly lead them.

You know the saying “He preaches water and drinks wine.” We are very sensitive to discrepancies between words and deeds. As we read above, a leader should live what they say. Yet sometimes ideals are set higher than everyday reality. What then? Give up ideals? That is impossible—for example, just because I struggle with prayer, I cannot give up the prayer life of my community saying if I don’t do it, neither should you. Neither is it helpful to pretend to be perfect. It’s better to admit struggles and invite others into that struggle, making it a shared journey. I’ve sometimes seen leaders desperately trying to hide any fault. Instead, it would suffice if they admitted they wrestle with something.

Humility is another very important character trait for leadership.
A humble person knows who they are and who they are not. They do not need to compete with others or feel threatened by them. They can wish others success, do not cling to their views at all costs, and do not need to be constantly visible or admired. Humility is mentioned as a key trait of one of the greatest leaders in Scripture, Moses (Num 12:3). Jesus also highlights humility as a trait we should learn from Him (Matt 11:29). Humility shows itself in willingness to do things unseen and unadmired.
In 2014, Harvard Business Review published a study showing “the best leaders are humble leaders.” They learn from criticism, are confident enough to empower others and praise their contributions, take personal risks for the greater good, and inspire loyalty and strong team spirit.

Service as a key leadership principle.
When reading books on leadership, I was surprised how strongly they emphasized service: leading on one hand and serving on the other. For example, J. Maxwell said:
"I measure my success by how much I help others. When leaders decide to serve people, the team’s success becomes their success."
Maxwell cites C.H. Edmonds, who defines leadership as a commitment to helping others become the best version of themselves at home, work, and community. Each of us can serve—and lead—in any role at home, at work, or in community.
If we look at business, wise managers care not only about profit but also about the development of their subordinates, whom they see primarily as partners. I expected this in Christianity but was surprised to find it in secular leadership.
Goethe once said: “You can easily recognize a man’s character by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.” This quote highlights the power of service. Leadership must not be confused with issuing orders. Serving others does not diminish a leader’s authority and influence. Also, only those who know who they are can serve without feeling humiliated.
To close this subsection, here are quotes from three great leaders about leadership and service:
“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” (M. Gandhi)
“Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.” (M.L. King)
“I stand before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you all.” (N. Mandela)

Willingness to compromise.
By this I do not mean compromising morals but willingness to compromise in cooperation. When working in a team, decisions usually aren’t made by voting but by consensus and agreement. This good practice carries one danger: if one member is “against everything,” meetings become a nightmare.
I do not mean having yes-men around me. I mean that leadership involves willingness to negotiate, bear that things might not go one’s way. Someone must give in, and the one who yields must not be offended, but remain loyal and move forward with the team.
Remember: “Cooperation does not mean agreement but working together for the greater good, to serve those who rely on our protection.”

Unhealthy Ministry

As some of you know, I have an autoimmune disease. A few months ago, I came across the outstanding work of Jewish-Canadian psychotherapist Gabor Maté. After many years of clinical practice, Maté compiled a list of personality traits commonly found in people suffering from chronic illnesses, including autoimmune diseases. Here is his list:

• Automatic and compulsive concern for the emotional needs of others, combined with neglecting one’s own needs.
• Rigid identification with social roles, duties, and responsibilities.
• Overmotivation and hyper-responsibility, often accompanied by multitasking—stemming from a belief that one must justify their existence by constantly doing something.
• Suppression of healthy, self-protective expressions of anger and aggression.
• Compulsive behavior rooted in two underlying beliefs: I am fully responsible for how others feel and I must never disappoint anyone.

Maté adds that these traits are not matters of willpower or conscious choice.

I probably don’t need to say that I recognized myself in many of these points—and perhaps you do too. I didn’t experience full burnout, and I can’t say with complete certainty that my autoimmune disease was caused by the circumstances I was in. Maybe it was. Maybe it was my body’s way of putting up a stop sign. In the end, thanks to God—and to my mother’s connections at the rheumatology institute—I was able to return to life.

Why this introduction? Because giving and receiving are not the same; serving and drawing spiritual energy are not the same. And yet they are deeply interconnected. If a person only receives, they become a consumer—and we were not created merely to consume. On the other hand, if we only give, we not only risk physical collapse, but we may also run out of inner resources and begin compensating in unhealthy ways, such as through various addictions.

I want to highlight four areas that I believe are essential for anyone who serves others:

---

1. Identity

If we look at Jesus’ public life as a timeline, it is framed by attacks on his identity—by the question, “Who are you?” At the beginning of his ministry, Satan says to him three times: “If you are the Son of God, prove it.” I’m not going to delve into the temptations themselves, but rather into this threefold “if you are.” What does it mean? It means: Prove that you are worth something. Prove that you can achieve something. Prove that you have value. Prove that your Father truly loves you.

The next attack on Christ’s identity comes at the cross, when someone in the crowd shouts: “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” In essence, it’s the same temptation as before: Prove your worth. Prove your power. Prove that you are loved.

When we help others, we become vulnerable. We often expose parts of our own lives; we give a piece of ourselves. We invest strong emotions into our service. Yet in such ministry, results don’t always come quickly—sometimes they don’t come at all—and we may feel like we’re doing something wrong. If we are to endure this reality, our identity must be firmly rooted in Jesus—specifically in the fact that he doesn’t need our achievements. He “only” wants our heart. If our identity is not anchored in Christ, we will constantly crave the approval of others and overexpose those parts of ourselves through which we seek validation. And that is not healthy.

---

2. Relationships

At the beginning of the Bible, there are two statements that something is “not good”—and both are in the context of relationships. The first is when God creates Adam and observes that it is not good for man to be alone. The second is when Moses is judging the people and becomes overwhelmed, and his father-in-law Jethro tells him: “What you are doing is not good. You will wear yourself out, and so will the people. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone.”

We need others. We need to live in the context of deep, genuine relationships. When Jesus embarks on his most difficult journey—the way to the cross—he asks his three closest friends to stay and pray with him. This may seem surprising. After all, who but Jesus should be able to endure solitude? Didn’t he have his heavenly Father? Why did he need the disciples? Because Jesus was also fully human—and as a human, he needed others to be with him in his suffering.

Some leaders and helpers are excellent at caring for others but incapable of being in authentic human relationships. You feel like they’re “discipling” you or offering advice rather than just being with you. In therapy and other helping professions, there is often talk about the importance of supervision—which is undoubtedly important. Still, such relationships can feel artificial. What I want to say is: to truly help others, we need to have and cultivate deep, healthy relationships.

---

3. Life as a Mission

Most of you reading this are likely in a different situation than I am—or than your pastor is. You work in secular jobs. Let’s set aside the fruitless debate over what is harder and focus on something else.

Peter was called into ministry during an ordinary fishing trip. Jesus’ parables nearly always take place in the context of everyday life—among fields, vineyards, weddings, and households. When Jesus talks about the kingdom of God, he often compares it to money or wealth—not prayer, worship, or temple rituals.

Jesus sanctifies everything we enter into with him. He doesn’t distinguish between church and office, Sunday and Monday—but rather between whether we do something with him or without him. That’s what makes the difference between something ordinary and something sacred.

If we see our life as a mission, we begin to live with the question: “Lord, how do you want to use what I can do, who I am, and what I have?” That’s what we call a calling—a life of purpose. It’s not so much about whether we stay or leave a particular job. It’s about whether we are aware of whom and where Jesus is sending us. Whether we see our whole life as a mission.

---

4. For Christ, With Christ

Peter Scazzero, author of The Emotionally Healthy Leader, writes:

“The emotionally unhealthy leader operates in a continuous state of emotional and spiritual deficit, replacing being with God with doing for God. They give God more than they receive from him. The demands and pressure of leadership make it impossible to live in consistent life rhythms. When they’re honest with themselves, they realize their cup is empty—or at best, half full—and they don’t feel the joy of God they speak about to others.”

Scazzero identifies four symptoms of emotionally immature leaders in ministry:

1. Low self-awareness and ignoring their inner world.
2. Prioritizing ministry over family.
3. Doing more for God than their relationship with God can sustain.
4. Lacking Sabbath rhythms (i.e., one day of rest per week).

From these, he derives four unhealthy commandments:

1. Until you achieve visible and measurable success in ministry, you are not successful.
2. What you do is more important than who you are.
3. Surface-level spirituality is acceptable.
4. As long as things are working, don’t look deeper.

Let me say this clearly: It is possible to serve Jesus without Jesus—to serve God without God. Sometimes we hear well-meaning Christian advice like, “Just pray and read the Bible, and everything will be okay.” I understand why we say this, but I fear we may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater—that we no longer truly believe in the power of prayer, and that we trust therapeutic methods far more.

But both matter. And if we are not drawing from the Source in our ministry, we will harm both ourselves and others. Sooner or later, we will run dry. We may still be helping—but spiritually, we will be running on autopilot.

---

Conclusion

Maybe you want to help—or you already do. That’s great. But as the stark examples at the beginning show, helping others has its pitfalls. To avoid at least some of them, I believe four areas are crucial:

• Having your identity rooted in Christ,
• Building healthy relationships,
• Seeing your life as a mission, and
• Serving Christ with Christ.

Chodil by Ježíš do hospody?

Před nějakou dobou v médiích proběhla diskuse okolo tzv. mše v hospodě. Poté se několik známých osobností hlásících se k víře nechalo na různých platformách slyšet, že „Ježíšovi by hospoda určitě nevadila a že naopak by se tam cítil jako doma“. Když pomineme, že v celé kauze nešlo až tak o hospodu, ale o dodržování správné liturgie tak jak to vyžaduje katolická církev (a do toho skutečně nevidím), celé mi to přišlo poněkud trapné a až kýčovité. Postupně se totiž vytvořil dojem, že existuje nějaká skupina zákonických a upjatých křesťanů, kteří do hospody nechodí a pak těch, kdo s hospodou nemají problém. Asi nemusím dodávat, která z těchto dvou skupin je pravdivější a autentičtější. Trapnost a kýčovitost byla v tom, že lidé byli přesvědčováni o problému, který neexistuje.

Myslím, že církev znám dobře a nepamatuji si za poslední řadu let, že bych někde někdy slyšel, že křesťan nemá chodit do hospody. Nemá se opíjet, což není výmysl církve, ale dočteme se to v Písmu. Jenže opít se lze kdekoliv. Vlastně do této kauzy mě nenapadlo, že by hospoda mohl být problém. Se staršovstvem si čas od času po našich setkáních jdeme do nedaleké hospody sednout, někteří pijí limonádu, někteří pivo, podle chuti. Vůbec by mě nenapadlo spojovat nápoj s vírou, či z hospody dělat kauzu nebo dokonce zakázané ovoce. Jsem velmi vděčný, že spolu jako vedení sboru máme skvělé vztahy a že máme potřebu být mimo oficiální jednání třeba i v hospodě (a někdy jinde).

Zároveň znám místa, kde v minulosti došlo k velkým duchovním probuzením mj. mezi lidmi, kteří byli alkoholiky. V jejich případě zcela dávalo smysl, že hospoda se stala tabu. (Stejně tak jsme se zdrželi alkoholu na akcích, kde s námi měli jet lidé léčící se ze závislosti na alkoholu). Problém nastal, že tabu zůstalo a další generace nevěděli proč. Hlavní poselství, které zůstalo bylo, „dobrý křesťan do hospody nechodí.“ Proto pak někdy někteří upadli do zákonictví a hospodou začali porovnávat zbožnost. Jenže tato doba je pryč a popravdě dnes někdy hrozí opačný extrém a některým křesťanům stejně tak duchovním by jistá míra abstinence neuškodila.

Jiná věc je, že slovo „hospoda“ se stále pojí s čímsi pokleslým. Jenže tím, že „staré dobré čtyřky“, kde jste navíc díky kouři z cigaret skoro neviděli, a kde díky levnému pivu nebyl problém do sebe kopnout 10 kousků za večer, už neexistují. Hospoda se dnes většinou stala místem k posezení a popovídání.

Samozřejmě, že by Ježíš do hospody šel. Pokud se snažíme aplikovat evangelium na současnost, pak moje otázka není, zda by Ježíš chodil do hospody, ale jak by se mu dařilo sdílet evangelium tak, aby mu lidé rozuměli a aby bylo jasné, že křesťanství není o tom zda hospoda ano či ne, ale o Něm, o Ježíši Kristu. A v tomto vidím někdy selhání nás křesťanů i duchovních.

A malá nevážná glosa na závěr. Pokud Ježíš pocházel z chudých poměrů, pak nevím, nevím, zda by při dnešních cenách piva nedal přednost ke scházení jiným místům. Ale to nechám na posouzení novozákonním teologům.

 Psáno pro Krestandnes.cz

Kritické myšlení v post pravdivé době a církev

 

Kritické myšlení je definováno jako „schopnost analyzovat, hodnotit a zpochybňovat informace namísto jejich slepého přijímání. Zahrnuje nezávislé uvažování, schopnost rozpoznat předsudky, identifikovat logické chyby a formulovat dobře podložené závěry. Jedná se o klíčovou dovednost v dnešním světě plném informací, protože pomáhá lidem rozlišovat fakta od manipulace a přijímat informovaná rozhodnutí.“ Tolik definice. Dovolil bych si k ní přidat jednu hypotézu. Jsem si téměř jistý, že většina čtenářů tohoto článku by o sobě řekla, že je schopna výše popsaného způsobu uvažování. Jinými slovy že jste schopni analyzovat, hodnotit a zpochybňovat informace namísto jejich slepého přijímání, stejně tak že jste schopni nezávislého uvažování.

Jenže skutečnost je složitější. Uvedu studii S. Asche (1907 – 1996) který kvůli historickým událostem, které pozoroval s nástupem fašismu v Německu ve 30. letech, začal studovat fenomén konformity. Uvědomil si, jak veřejné mínění, propaganda a manipulace mohou zásadně ovlivnit rozhodování často i velmi chytrých a vzdělaných lidí.

Ve své studii z roku 1951 požádal účastníky, aby porovnávali délku čar na kartách. Pointa experimentu byla v tom, že většina lidí v místnosti tajně spolupracovala s Aschem a úmyslně dávala nesprávné odpovědi. Skutečný účastník, který o tom nevěděl, se často přizpůsobil chybnému názoru skupiny – i když byla správná odpověď zcela zjevná.

Zde jsou konkrétní výsledky: V průměru se přibližně jedna třetina (32%) účastníků v této situaci přizpůsobila a souhlasila s očividně nesprávným názorem většiny během klíčových pokusů. Během 12 klíčových pokusů se asi 75 % účastníků alespoň jednou přizpůsobilo, zatímco 25 % účastníků se nikdy nepřizpůsobilo. Ve skupině kontrolní, kde nebyl žádný tlak na konformitu od spolupracovníků experimentu, méně než 1 % účastníků uvedlo nesprávnou odpověď.

Proč se tedy lidé přizpůsobují? Studie ukázala, že kvůli strachu z odmítnutí nebo odlišnosti od skupiny a kvůli přesvědčení, že moje skupina má správnou odpověď.

Přes to, že byl experiment provedený před více než půl staletím, jeho interpretace platí dodnes. Ukazuje nám, proč se lidé rozhodují podle názoru skupiny nebo proč se váhají či dokonce bojí postavit zlé a manipulující autoritě. Tento efekt můžeme vidět na sociálních sítích, v politice i v běžných životních rozhodnutích.

Jsme stvořeni žít „v tlupě“, tedy ve skupině, která nám odjakživa pomáhala přežít. Abychom s tlupou přežili, více či méně se jí potřebujeme přizpůsobit. To vysvětluje, proč mnozí lidé přijímají populární názory, i když s nimi vnitřně nesouhlasí. Chtějí se vyhnout konfliktům nebo izolaci. Konformita se pak projevuje nejen na sociálních sítích, ale mi v pracovních kolektivech, ve třídách ve škole, v politice nebo v církvi.

Jde o to, že člověk často nehledá pravdu, ale zdroje, které mu potvrzují to, o čem si myslí, že je pravda. Proč? Protože chceme jistotu, a protože chceme přátele. Čím je doba komplikovanější, čím více prožíváme nejistoty, čím více jsme dezorientováni, frustrováni, tím logicky více hledáme jasné a zároveň jednoduché odpovědi.

V současné době hovoříme o tzv. postpravdivé době, která je mj. charakterizována tím, že emocionální apely často převládají nad objektivními fakty. Protože emoce mají obrovskou sílu, fakta jsou upozaděna. Někdy nechápeme, jak někdo může věřit některým nesmyslům, jak snadno uvěří různým demagogům a manipulátorům, jenže jak vidíme, může. Důležité je slovo věřit. Fakta jsou upozaděna, nejsou potřebná, hlavní je „upřímná a dobře odprezentovaná víra“. Někdo namítne, zda takto nemá vypadat křesťanství? Nemá! Víra neznamená vypnutí rozumu a hlavním kritériem pravdy nemůže být upřímnost.

Ale zpět k postpravdivé době. Pokud není pravda to, oč tu běží, pak zde je pár následků.

-        Šíření dezinformací, tedy nepravdivých nebo zavádějících informací.

-        Polarizace společnosti, což má za následek, že se lidé uzavírají do názorových bublin a odmítají protichůdné informace.

-        Používání emocionálních apelů místo racionálních argumentů.

-        Rostoucí skepticismus vůči médiím, vědě a autoritám.

-        Algoritmická selekce informací, kdy sociální sítě zobrazují obsah na základě preferencí uživatele, což posiluje jeho názorovou bublinu.

Vše, co jsem doposud popsal, celkem spolehlivě vypíná schopnost kriticky myslet. Problém je v tom, že většina z vás, kteří tento článek čtete si myslíte, že na výše popsané triky nenaletíte, že kriticky přemýšlet dokážete. Jenže popsaný fenomén hrozí nám všem nezávisle na vzdělání, chytrosti, církvi či víře.  

Jak tomu předejít? Těžko. Přesto se pokusím více v kontextu církve nabídnout pár návrhů s tím, že vás varuji, že jejich praktikování může bolet.

 

Zkuste poctivě, bez předsudků a na vlastní kůži nahlédnout do jiné křesťanské tradice, pobavit se s jejími příslušníky, číst jejich autory. Čím více se lišíte, tím lépe pro vás. Zjistíte, že na druhé straně nejsou tak hrozní, hloupí, bezbožní, předuchovnělí atd. jak jste si mysleli. Pukud tak nečiníte, vzpomeňte si na S. Asche. Hrozí vám, že jste se obklopili jen svojí bublinou, která vám dává pocit komfortu. Je to pro vás sice pohodlné, ale kritické myšlení tímto potlačujete.

Berte s rezervou autory, které kritizují „křesťanství“ bez toho, aby si dali práci upřesnit o jakou tradici či směr jde. Pokud někdo napíše, že „sexuální násilí je obrovským problémem církve“ pak je to hrubé zevšeobecnění. Jen v Česku je církví několik desítek, a proto je třeba tento výrok upřesnit. Stejné platí i o jiných „popisech církevní reality“.

Varujte se stranit ostatních, protože máte pocit, že jste nalezli ten správný výklad Písma. Povede vás to k beznadějné uzavřenosti. Ten, kdo nemluví s druhými, nebo druhé příliš selektuje, ztrácí sebereflexi a hrozí mu pýcha.

Zkoumejte, jak moc je ten, kdo společenství vede, otevřený ke kritice. Pokud se kritika zapovídá, rychle pryč!

Pozor na unáhlené zevšeobecňování. To, že někdo v některém společenství ujel, něco špatného napsal, neznamená, že tak budou činit všichni.

Když hledáte odpovědi na otázky života a víry, hledejte jinde, než mezi vámi. Evangelík u charismatiků, letniční u evangelíků, katolík u protestantů, protestant u katolíků atd. Pokud tak neděláte, hrozí, že ve skutečnosti nehledáte pravdu, ale jen potvrzení toho, co potvrdit chcete.

Čtete kvalitní autory a zdroje. V době, kdy si každý může udělat svůj youtube kanál nebo podcast, to není snadné. Ptejte se, kdo je za to, které médium odpovědný, kdo je v redakční radě, zda vůbec nějaká redakční rada existuje, na koho se dotyčný autor odvolává a zda z něčeho vychází atd.

Přemýšlejte nad pohledy, se kterými nesouhlasíte a které vás vytáčí. Položte si otázku, jak dotyčný ke svému závěru došel a nezesměšňujte ho. Ukážu to na příkladu D. Trumpa. Štve mě, ale je příliš zjednodušené jeho zvolení uzavřít tvrzení, že ho volili zmanipulovaní tupci. Nemají ale máslo na hlavě i tzv. progresivisté svojí agresivní rétorikou? Mnohým se na druhou větu odpovídá nesnadno…

Nečtěte jen články, ale i knihy. Článek je vždy selekce, nemůže v principu postihnout vše, kniha je v tomto mnohem komplexnější.

Pozor na první dojem. Ten bývá obyčejně zavádějící a nepřesný.

Ukončím slovy J. Sackse, tak jak si představuji víru, která je pevná a která je připravená ke kritickému myšlení: „Je to jako přebývat v jistotě vlastního domova, a přesto být pohnut krásou cizích míst, s vědomím, že nejsou domovem mým, ale někoho jiného, a přesto patří ke slávě světa. Ti, jejichž víra je pevná, se necítí ohroženi, ale umocněni odlišnou vírou druhých. Uprostřed mnoha našich nejistot tuto pevnost víry potřebujeme.“ (Důstojnost v rozdílnosti) Dovolil bych si jen místo slova víra v kontextu tohoto článku dodat křesťanská tradice či církev.

 Psáno pro Proboha.cz

 

Umělá inteligence a Duch svatý

 

Zhruba před rokem a půl jsem byl pozván na slavnostní křest rozsáhlého teologického slovníku, na jehož tvorbě se podílela řada vzdělaných teologů z několika zemí. V rámci této akce jsem byl požádán, abych pronesl krátkou řeč. Nebylo mi to úplně příjemné, protože jsem měl respekt před svými posluchači, zároveň jsem doufal, že v jejich případě bude platit přísloví, že „plné klasy se ohýbají hluboko“, tedy že jejich vzdělanost je povede k jisté velkorysosti a pokoře. Navíc jsem měl mluvit anglicky a přece jen se nejedná o můj rodný jazyk.

Projev jsem si připravil, začal mluvit abych ho po cca. dvou minutách přerušil otázkou, zda se jim vše, co jsem doposud řekl, zdá v pohodě. Posluchači se tvářili dost divně, nechápali, kam touto otázkou mířím, nicméně kývali, že vše je v pořádku. Po pár vteřinách jsem jim ozřejmil důvod své otázky. Myšlenky, které jsem jim sdělil, jsem nevymyslel já, ale umělá inteligence. Moje otázka byla, jak je možné, že to nepoznali ani tak slovutní teologové, jako jsou oni. Reakce posluchačů byla rozporuplná. Na jednu stranu se někteří zasmáli, na stranu druhou bylo cítit, že se jim tento vtip (tedy pokud se to dá za vtip považovat) moc nelíbil.

Od té doby uplynul rok a půl a AI pokročila mílovými kroky dopředu. Napíše vám kázání, požehnání, ztišení, Biblické studium atd. Třeba dodat, že ve vysoké kvalitě nebo alespoň v kvalitě, která převyšuje mnoho autorů, navíc nepoznáte, zda text vytvořil člověk, který ho pouze slovně či písemně publikuje nebo AI.

Jako autora mnohých křesťanských textů, esejů, několika knih, dále jako toho, do přednáší o křesťanské víře, mě výše popsané staví před následující otázku. Má smysl se nadále snažit, když existuje lepší zdroj informací? Nedávno jsem byl v jakémsi panelu a moderátor se mě zeptal, zda bych jako dlouhodobý pracovník s mládeží mohl popsat současnou mládež, jak se liší od generace mojí a jak moc je otevřená ke křesťanské zvěsti. Něco jsem se sebe soukal, načež si vzal slovo druhý panelista, který vysmahl brilantní odpověď. Asi nemusím psát, kde ji našel…  Někdo by mohl říci, že já do toho dal „to srdíčko“, což je sice hezké, ale z hlediska kvality informací „srdíčko“ nepomůže.

Co tedy s tím? Můžeme diskutovat, že kvalitní přednáška, kázání vždy bude lepší než AI. Možná ano, ale ruku na srdce. Ono těch skutečně kvalitních řečníků a autorů zas až tak moc není. Mají to ti ostatní vzdát? A co když to dopadne jako v šachách? Tedy stroj člověk prostě neporazí a ani ti nejlepší to nakonec nesdělí lépe než AI?

Mám za to, že díky AI se nám odkrývá nový rozměr našich kázání, přednášek a křesťanských textů. Často jsme hodnotili kvalitu informací. Líbilo se nám a stále se nám líbí, když dotyčný dokázal přijít na nové věci, které jsme nevěděli, odcitoval zajímavý zdroj, odkázal na dobrého autora. Občas jsme si řekli něco ve smyslu tak toto jsem skutečně nevěděl, tato informace je pro mě nová atd. S příchodem AI toto končí. Kdo s ní umí pracovat, většinu informací si prostě najde.

Stále budou mít hodnotu dobré informace, stále bude třeba tomu kterému tématu rozumět, abychom se dokázali AI správně zeptat, ale jednu věc AI nedokáže.

Za pár dní si budeme připomínat Letnice, tedy seslání Ducha svatého. Je to Duch svatý, který oživuje církev, pokud je na jeho působení otevřená. Jak to souvisí s AI a informacemi, které se v církvi pokoušíme předat? Kdy kážu, píšu, mám naději, že Pán Bůh skrze svého Ducha (nejen) mým textům může dát víc než jen správnou informaci. Oživuje je, používá si je, působí, že se text dotkne lidského srdce, že se mezi nebem a zemí děje cosi, co ani přesně nelze popsat. Slovo se stane Božím slovem a to nikoliv nezbytně díky něčemu, co jsme ještě nikdy, nikde neslyšeli, ale díky Duchu svatému. Je to Duch, který dává život.

Proto mě AI neohrožuje. Sportovně přiznávám, že je často prostě lepší. To mi ale nebrání se poctivě připravovat na kázání a poctivě pracovat nad různými křesťanskými texty. Dělám to i s modlitbou, aby si to Pán Bůh skrze svého Ducha použil, aby texty oživil. A stejně to, věřím, máte i vy. Aby dal našim slovům prorocký rozměr, který nelze postihnout skrze AI. Snad se nám to bude dařit.

A otázka na závěr. Myslíte, že tento text psala AI nebo já? (psáno pro server Prohoha)

Existuje dno?

Dnes mi přišel odkaz na článek v kterém se dočítáme, že D. Trump nejen že odmítl prodat Ukrajině systémy protivzdušné obrany Patriot, ale nechal se slyšet, že válka je chyba Ukrajiny, protože si "neměla začínat proti silnějšímu." Dotyčný, který mi článek poslal, připsal jen krátkou otázku. Má ta zvrácenost dno? Trump ukazuje, že nemá.

Stále méně chápu americkou demokracii, kde jeden jediný člověk rozhoduje s takovou rychlostí o takto důležitých věcech, chápu, že je na Američanech (nebo nyní pouze na Trumpovi), komu prodávat zbraně, nechutný je ale další z mnoha zlých Trumpových výlevů vůči Ukrajině.

Zda se jedná o tupost, provokaci, podlehnutí ruským fake news nebo další nadbíhání Putinovi nevíme, do hlavy Trumpovi nevidíme. Cyničtější je tento výrok v kontextu masové vraždy desítek civilistů na květnou neděli před pár dny.

Nepsal bych o tom, kdyby po internetu nekolovaly záběry, kde se Trump modlí a okolo něj jsou shromážděni představitelé různých denominací, kteří na něj vzkládají ruce a modlí se za něj, kteří se nechávají slyšet, že s jeho nástupem nastává návrat Ameriky ke křesťanským hodnotám.

Protože se také za křesťana považuji a občas někde něco veřejně sdělím, chci napsat, že s tzv. tradičním křesťanstvím v podání Trumpa nechci mít nic společného. Křesťanství znamená mj. stát na straně slabých a utlačovaných. Když už jim nechci pomoci a nejsem schopen diktátora a vraha nazvat pravým jménem, alespoň slabého nemusím urážet, ponižovat a zneužívat jeho situace. To totiž není křesťanské, ale démonské.