PneumaReview.com invites you to read this paper by Professor Eugen Jugaru and discuss the connection between joy and suffering.

Abstract

Suffering for the Christian faith and Christian worship exuberance, paradoxically have a common ground: a joy beyond understanding which comes from the Holy Spirit. The reality of this unusual and passionate experience: joy in sufferings and worship, was experienced by Christians in Romania, a country that for 45 years was ruled by a fierce atheist Communist regime. Their experiences were similar to the first-century Christians who after being beaten for breaking the interdiction to spread the Gospel, “rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His (Christ’s) name” (Acts. 5:40-41). Two Christians remained examples for Romanian Christians by their determination in persecution, Richard Wurmbrand and Nicolae Steinhardt.

Also during the persecution in Romania, believers who were not imprisoned have also experienced a deep presence of the Holy Spirit in worship. These moments flooded their hearts with unimaginable joy which gave them power to forgive their enemies and to receive strength to face courageously the atheist regime.

I will be presenting the reality of joy beyond understanding in suffering and worship due to the presence and empowering of the Holy Spirit through the use of written narrative testimonies of Richard Wurmbrand and Nicolae Steinhardt as well as other written testimonies of Christians within the Pentecostal churches of Romania during the same period under the Communist regime. I will be providing an interpretive layer on the materials that will connect their responses to the work of the Spirit. By using current writings and observation I then will reveal the diminishing of this experience in contemporary post-Communism as reflected in the Christian experience in Romania.

Introduction

The theme of joy, whether it is viewed from a Christian perspective based on soteriological or pneumatological elements or whether from secular perspective, is a current topic due to general pessimism which seems to mark the contemporary generation. While we enjoy many of the products and services that did not benefited our parents it seems that there is an unseen enemy of joy that does not allow us to live our lives with great confidence and profound optimism. Joy of life today is overshadowed by the burden of stress, by the assault of various news media, especially negative news, by the fear of sickness or by anxiety of an unsure future due to multiple crises.

In this paper I will be presenting the idea that there can be a real and a deep joy, a joy beyond understanding, beyond the comprehension of our mind and reason, a joy in suffering and in worship, in prayers and songs for those who have accepted the Christian perspective on life. As an example to support this thesis I present the testimonies of several Christians from different denominations, who experienced a joy beyond understanding when they were imprisoned. Their experience can teach us today about the joy beyond understanding, a real joy that surpass difficulties of the life and can help us today when we have freedom and rights, but consequently less joy.

What is joy beyond understanding and how does this kind of joy manifest itself?

Joy beyond understanding is that state of spiritual exaltation that makes a person who has it to forget the difficulties of the life and to experience God’s presence in a very strong, real and personal way.

Joy beyond understanding and comprehension does not depend on the circumstances of life, it is rooted in God’s continual presence and grace, for it is a work of the Holy Spirit. Usually joy is that personal feeling due to certain achievements or because of good news received, but joy beyond understanding does not depend on such external input. Joy beyond understanding cannot be expressed well in words; it can be experienced, felt but not fully communicated in words.

The manifestation of joy beyond understanding can be expressed by a shining upon the face or even by tears of joy. Personally, I think that a smile and laughter can be a manifestation of joy, but does not suggests in the best way the depth of joy, it is not so deep as the tears of joy which cannot be stopped. I watched TV programs broadcasting live emotional meetings between people who have not met for many years, between life partners or between parents and children, and in most of these exciting meetings protagonists could not retain tears of joy.

The joy beyond understanding does not comes from a human predisposition toward happiness or, as I related before from the satisfaction of personal achievement, but its source is divine, it is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:20-22). When Paul contrasts the works of the flesh and the fruit of Holy Spirit, he revealed that among the items and fruit of the Spirit is also joy (Greek chara).

Jeffrey J. Niehaus (PhD, Harvard University) is professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. His previous publications include God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East (Zondervan, 1995) as well as commentaries on Amos and Obadiah (Baker, 1992-93) and numerous journal articles. In the text now under discussion, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, Niehaus draws on research into ancient Near Eastern contexts to compare numerous parallels in (especially) the Old Testament (OT) and the Bible as a whole. Carefully researched and yet written in quite readable language, it is well organized and has a short but good bibliography and Scripture and subject indexes. This work should be an excellent resource for students, teachers, pastors, and Bible readers interested in understanding more deeply the cultural and spiritual background of the Holy Scriptures.

The Preface and first chapter identify Niehaus’ guiding principles. He writes reverently. He is convinced of God’s sovereignty over history and human cultures, and therefore contends that God has “allowed a variety of parallels to arise between theological concepts and practices in the ancient Near East and their counterparts in the Bible.” However, he thinks “there is not only a parallelism between certain themes in the Bible and its world, but there is also a structure of thought that is common to them both and that forms the theological backbone of the Bible.” Niehaus defends a strong doctrine of truth rooted in the biblical revelation. Yet he also defends the idea that ancient myths can contain elements of truth more plainly manifested in the Bible itself. Some try to account for this strange fact by positing some universal aspect of human nature and others simply see the Bible as dependant on pagan literature; but Niehaus looks at pagan literature through the lens of the Bible rather than the converse. In a word, Niehaus parts company with much of contemporary ancient Near Eastern and OT scholarship. He plainly does not see the Bible as dependant on pagan literature. Rather, he thinks the biblical revelation draws on preexisting and widespread cultural thought constructs to communicate divinely revealed eternal truth.

Niehaus argues, first, that the OT preserves true and accurate accounts of major events (e.g., Creation, the Flood), but that extra biblical sources may also “preserve the memory of such events”, albeit in distorted forms. Second, he argues that the OT uses literary and legal forms current in surrounding cultures as vehicles of special revelation. Third, he argues that the parallels between these appear “because God allowed concepts that are true of him and his ways to appear in the realm of common grace.” Accordingly, the Old and New Testaments complete and fulfill “the shared theological structure of ideas” that already existed in the ancient Near East. He goes farther, however, insisting that this shared theological structure provides “the theological backbone of the whole Bible.” He readily admits that in the ancient Near East the shared structure eventually became “blurred” and that in modern western cultures it has been “abandoned”; it is only “kept alive” in the Church, “God’s people, who continue to be his temple and to advance his kingdom, until he returns to establish it once and for all, for all time, and for all who believe in him.”

Stanley N. Gundry and James Stamoolis, eds., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 294 pages.

This book is a fine addition to Zondervan’s Counterpoint series, in which controversial theological issues are examined from a variety of stances by reputable scholars and/or denominational leaders. This particular book offers a variety of perspectives on the relationship between the evangelical movement and the oldest Christian community, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Respected evangelical scholar J. I. Packer writes the forward and five pastors and theologians, some evangelical and some Orthodox, offer answers to the question of whether Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible. All five present their answers (yes, no and maybe) and the other four are given the opportunity to respond to the presenter. The presenting writer is then allowed to respond to the respondents.

Bradley Nassif, an Orthodox theologian with an extensive background in evangelical higher education and ecumenical activity offers the sole affirmative response for the compatibility of these two Christian traditions. Nassif demonstrates not only a thorough grasp of his own tradition but an impressive comprehension and positive assessment of evangelicalism. His primary thesis is that Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible because Orthodox theology is evangelical, whether or not Orthodox adherents and church leadership care to identify it as such. Nassif uses David Bebbington’s fourfold definition of evangelicalism to show Orthodox and evangelical compatibility. First, both groups emphasize “crucicentrism” (centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Christ), “biblicism” (commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture), “conversionism” (personal commitment of one’s life to Christ) and “activism” (witness and holy living). Nassif grants that both Orthodoxy and evangelicalism do not often emphasize specific doctrinal elements contained in these basic agreements to the satisfaction of each group, but the agreement is nonetheless there in principle.

Michael Horton, a Reformed evangelical theologian, writes next, denying the compatibility of the two traditions. Horton begins by appreciating the areas of commonality between the two, such as a high view of Scripture and conservative Christology (doctrine of Christ’s person and work). He finds problems, however, with the high view of church tradition espoused by Orthodoxy in relation to Scripture, finding there the same problem he perceives with the Roman Catholic view. Even more fundamentally, however, Horton alleges that Orthodoxy does not possess an adequate view on issues of sin, free will and salvation, particularly with regard to justification and sanctification. He contends that, due to Orthodoxy’s stress on sanctification, it promotes a salvation by works that fundamentally denies justification by faith alone. He claims that the evangelical view denies any role of the human in salvation and that this, in contrast to the Orthodox view, is the true Gospel message.