David Anguish
Jesus' sentiments could not be clearer. "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:15-16, NASB; cf. Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 1:13-16; 1 John 2:15-17). As disciples, we are called to be different. Even as we recognize this ideal, we acknowledge our struggles to consistently attain it. Thus, we also acknowledge the need for occasional calls to restore our difference.
What we do not always recognize are the subtle pulls away from God's standard. The challenge is not always a moral compromise, nor even a foundational doctrine. Sometimes, it's almost negligible. But, assuming that whatever God calls for us to be and do is designed to either protect us or provide for us, we know that, even in areas where conformity with the world does not seem as blatant, the dangers which are present any time we conform demand that we give attention to restoring the ideal.
One such area involves the modern use of the terms "minister" and "ministry." There are at least three things which contribute to a failure to live up to God's ideal as regards this term. First, multiple English words are used to translate diakonia, diakonos and diakone_, the main Greek words employed. While there are good reasons for this variety, its existence contributes to a misapplication of the word in our practice. Second, some have surrendered, or at least relaxed, the biblical understanding of the term in favor of the way our world typically uses it. Third, the word itself involves a concept and commitment which is out of step with our world's expectations. We will deal with this factor first.
Several years ago, we read an article which told of a junior executive who had been instructed to do a job. The younger man replied, "I'll see that it's done immediately." His boss reprimanded him with these words: "No, you'll do it. I'm seeing that it's done!" This exchange illustrates the typical view of success in which power, prestige and privilege - usually afforded by wealth - are the keys. Those who are really successful are not those who do for others, but those who can see to it that others do for them.
Before we focus on how out of step with Jesus' ideal this is, we should notice how much it resembles the views of his world. Among the Greeks, diakonia, voluntarily giving oneself in the service of others, was considered degrading and dishonorable. "In Greek eyes, service is not very dignified. . . . The formula of the sophist: 'How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?' expresses the basic Greek attitude. . . . For the Greek in his wisdom and freedom there can certainly be no question of existing to serve others" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:82-83).
The Jewish attitude was no better. "Though Judaism in the time of Jesus knew and practiced its social responsibilities, e.g., to the poor, this was done mainly by alms, not by service (cf. Luke 10:30-35). Lowly service, e.g., waiting at table, was beneath the dignity of a free man (cf. Luke 7:44ff.)" (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:545).
Against these attitudes - and their modern counterparts - Jesus calls upon his followers to imitate his example (he came to serve, not be served - Mark 10:45). In using the diakonia word group, he employed a term which refers to "menial and mundane activities . . . activities without apparent dignity" (J. Gary Inrig, "Called to Serve: Toward a Philosophy of Ministry," Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1983, 336).
The fact that he used this word, that its major focus is on service, not an office, and that New Testament writers use it to refer to all God's people has far reaching implications for challenging us to ministry more like Christ's than the world's.