target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_d1bd0d1b-7082-5b63-814b-6d8f5aa01a84">80 See Matthew 18:1–5; Mark 9:33–37; Luke 9:46–48.
81 Matthew 18:3–4.
1.7 TRAINING: MANAGING CHANGE
The Leadership of Change
The leadership of change can be one of the most difficult and thankless tasks a leader undertakes—in particular when it involves the reform of entrenched practices or institutions that need to be changed because they have become outdated, deformed, counterproductive, or obsolete but to which those engaged in them are still deeply committed because of tradition, habit, familiarity, and resistance to innovation.
In the case of Jesus, he first focused his ministry of change not on the general public but on his small band of initial followers. As A. B. Bruce pointed out, it was an onerous undertaking:
At the time of their call they were exceedingly ignorant, narrow-minded, superstitious, full of … prejudices, misconceptions, and animosities. They had much to unlearn of what was bad, as well as much to learn of what was good, and they were slow both to learn and unlearn. Old beliefs already in possession of their minds made the communication of new religious ideas a difficult task.82
The three well-established religious conventions of his day that Jesus particularly addressed were the practices and institutions of fasting, ceremonial washing, and Sabbath observance. Jesus specifically addressed the reform of religious practices and institutions—those most resistant to change because they are rooted in deeply held beliefs that their adherents believe to be immutable and divinely sanctioned. But the principles and techniques Jesus utilized to induce change under such circumstances are relevant to the reform of any deeply entrenched practice or institution.
The Critique of Current Practices
In Jesus’ day, the most rigorous teachers and practitioners of fasting, ceremonial washing, and Sabbath observance were the Pharisees. As the primary teachers of the law of Moses, their instruction and example with respect to these practices were highly influential with the general public, including the members of Jesus’ initial band of followers.83 So to change the conduct of the latter in relation to these practices, Jesus first had to critique the teaching and practices of the former. His focus was on criticizing not the essence of these practices but the extremes to which the Pharisees carried them.
For example, with respect to ceremonial washing,
The aim of the rabbinical prescriptions respecting washings was not physical cleanliness, but something thought to be far higher and more sacred. Their object was to secure, not physical, but ceremonial purity; that is, to cleanse the person from such impurity as might be contracted by contact with a Gentile, or with a Jew in a ceremonially unclean state, or with an unclean animal, or with a dead body or any part thereof … Not content with purifications prescribed in the law for uncleanness actually contracted, they made provision for merely possible cases. If a man did not remain at home all day, but went out to market, he must wash his hands on his return, because it was possible that he might have touched some person or thing ceremonially unclean. Great care, it appears, had also to be taken that the water used in the process of ablution was itself perfectly pure; and it was necessary even to apply the water in a particular manner to the hands, in order to secure the desired results.84
With respect to Sabbath observance, adherence to the fourth commandment,85 Bruce again described in considerable detail the extremes to which the Pharisaic interpretation and practice of this institution had been taken.
Their habit, in all things, was to degrade God’s law by framing innumerable petty rules for its better observance, which, instead of securing that end, only made the law appear base and contemptible. In no case was this miserable micrology carried to greater lengths than in connection with the fourth commandment. With a most perverse ingenuity, the most insignificant actions were brought within the scope of the prohibition against labour. Even in the case put by our Lord, that of an animal fallen into a pit, it was deemed lawful to lift it out—so at least those learned in rabbinical lore tell us—only when to leave it there till Sabbath was past would involve risk to life. When delay was not dangerous, the rule was to give the beast food sufficient for the day; and if there was water in the bottom of the pit, to place straw and bolsters below it, that it might not be drowned.86
Jesus’ Critique of Religious Extremism
In critiquing the Pharisaic approach to teaching and enforcing adherence to the commandments of the Mosaic law, Jesus illustrated the merits of always taking a hard look at what I call “the dark side of the moon.” In other words, whatever doctrine or philosophy of life we may adhere to—be it religious, political, or cultural—in our mind’s eye we should push it to its extreme and take a hard look at what that really looks like and the results it may produce. If that image of the extreme is ugly and deformed and the results of its pursuit are evil and deplorable, as the image and products of extremism most frequently are, then that realization ought to strongly incentivize us to back away, to resist movement in that direction, to avoid association with that extreme, and to warn others to do likewise.
For example, the Rule of Law as given to Moses by God when genuinely followed by ancient Israelites was a noble and beneficial concept originally given as an instrument for establishing and maintaining right relationships between God and his people and among the people themselves. But pushed to the fanatical extreme to which the Pharisees pressed it—whereby the Rule of Law was transformed into an arid, crippling, and hypocritical legalism—it became a barrier, not a means, to right relations with God and a burden instead of a boon to the people—the very opposite of the results that it was originally intended to produce.
With respect to Sabbath observance, Jesus dealt with the extreme interpretations and practices of the Pharisees in three distinct ways.
First, he demonstrated his personal disapproval of and opposition to the Pharisaic teachings and practices of Sabbath observance by personally violating certain of their teachings on this subject and defending his followers for doing likewise. For example, on five separate occasions as recorded in the Gospels, Jesus deliberately and publicly performed acts of healing on the Sabbath despite the accusations and protestations of the Pharisees that this constituted Sabbath breaking.87 On another occasion, he stoutly defended the actions of his disciples, who had plucked some ears of grain on the Sabbath day to satisfy their hunger, again over the objections of the Pharisees that this constituted “work” and was therefore to be condemned.88
Second, Jesus drew a distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law, maintaining that acts of mercy (healing) and acts of necessity (satisfying hunger) were completely within the spirit of the law, which the Pharisees were violating and quenching by their extreme interpretations and extensions of the letter of the law.
Third, he taught that the proper practice of Sabbath observance required an understanding of the original design and purpose of such practices and the need for adjustments to conserve that design and purpose under changing circumstances.
Original Design and the Necessity of Change in Order to Conserve
Concerning the original purpose of the Sabbath, Jesus taught his early followers that “the Sabbath
