Not So with You: Power and Leadership for the Church

By Mark Stirling and Mark Meynell

The spate of recent scandals of power abuse by leaders within the evangelical world suggests something is wrong in our churches. When a leader misuses power, they have misunderstood and misrepresented God and the gospel. This volume addresses the key underlying issue of what a biblical and healthy use of power in the church actually looks like. Authors from a variety of Christian backgrounds and traditions help frame a biblical and theological understanding and practice of power use, describe what it looks like when things go wrong (and how to recognize the signs), and suggest how the contemporary church can and must do better in this area. This book is a rigorously grounded biblical challenge to much contemporary practice. It is a call to reformation.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Why Another Book on Power and Why Now?
Mark Stirling

Imitating the Mindset of Christ
Mark Stirling

Confessions of a Potential Authoritarian: Knowing the Trinity as Antidote to Pastoral Authoritarianism
Jared Michelson

"You must not do as they do . . . " Old Testament Israel's Distinctive Patterns of Leadership
Chris Wright

Sin and Why We Need to Take It More Seriously
Nick Mackison

The Power of the Imago Dei and the Imago Dei in Power
Mark Meynell

Symbolic Capital and the Dynamics of Leadership: The Gospel and the Idolatry of Status
Grant Macaskill

Use, Not Abuse: An Augustinian Approach to Loving People
Graham Shearer

When a Church Becomes a Cult: Twenty-Five Years On
Steve Wookey

The Cost of Brokenness
Blythe Sizemore

Authoritative, Not Authoritarian
Sam Allberry

When Our First Love Is Loving to Be First
Chris Green

Mentors, Not Masters
Marcus Honeysett

Of God and God-Men
Sushila Ailawadi

Pastors Empowering Women to Flourish
Tasha Chapman

Signs and Symptoms of Unhealthy Leaders and Their Systems
Mark Stirling

Conclusion: That No Bruised Reed Is Ever Broken
Mark Meynell

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jun 26, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666760187

Book preview

Introduction

Why Another Book on Power and Why Now?

Mark Stirling

You Can’t Do Jesus’ Work in Non-Jesus Ways

In all the recent leadership scandals on both sides of the Atlantic, the consistent factor is Christian leaders trying to do Jesus’ work in ways that are inconsistent with Jesus’ example and teaching.

The widespread misuse or abuse of power amongst christian leaders is traceable to a misunderstanding, and consequently a misrepresentation, of God and the gospel. This is bad for everyone and a tragic compromise of the church’s witness. We cannot afford to treat this lightly and simply tweak our leadership structures or practices; we need to start with the theological and biblical issues at the root of this disease that infects so many of our churches and organizations.

Any critique must start with ourselves; we need to remove our log before our brother’s speck. This is not a problem out there, but in here. The problems we are diagnosing are widespread and are not limited to any one theological or cultural perspective. This is why our contributors represent a wide range of denominations and traditions.

Our sincere prayer is that this book is not used primarily as a resource for judging others, so much as an aid to prayerful self-examination. That said, many readers will have to wrestle prayerfully (but, we hope, not alone) with the question of when bad character should be exposed publicly for the protection of others. This is a complex and challenging question to which there is no formulaic answer, but we can say confidently that coverup and lies are not the Jesus way. He does not need us to lie to protect his reputation; rather, when we speak the truth, we demonstrate that we trust him. Such truth speaking in this book will also be an affirmation that what many have experienced is indeed wrong. We hope bringing sin into the light will also be a step on the way to healing for many.

The overall message of this book constitutes a call to repentance that starts with a recognition of the severity of the diagnosis. The first section of the book therefore addresses the theological and biblical roots of the problem before proceeding to pastoral and practical reflections in Section 2.

Section 1: Biblical and Theological Foundations

We start with an exploration of Jesus’ pattern of self-giving love in Phil 2:5–11 as the attitude to be imitated by all believers. Power is for self-giving, not for selfish gain. In chapter 2, Jared Michelson reflects on the theological (and specifically trinitarian) misunderstandings that may underly harmful leadership. More robust theology is required. Chris Wright then summarizes Old Testament teaching on characteristics of godly leadership. This leads us to the key issue of what has gone wrong. In chapter 4, Nick Mackison addresses the fact that leadership abuse often flourishes because of evangelical naivete about the depth and extent of sin. We must be willing to face the awfulness of sin if we are to guard against its most damaging effects in the life of the church. Mark Meynell then explores the implications for leadership that all humans are divine image bearers and therefore infinitely precious. In chapter 6, Grant Macaskill argues that symbolic capital and the social status we gain by accruing it is the rubbish Paul rejects in Phil 3. The implications of this for how we think about and practice leadership are far-reaching. The final essay in this section is Graham Shearer’s provocative reflection on Augustine’s idea of never allowing a human person to become the ultimate object of our love, but being led through those we love to God himself.

Section 2: Practical and Pastoral Reflections

Section 2 starts with Steve Wookey’s sad reflection on cultish behavior in churches twenty-five years on from the book he wrote warning about exactly that. In chapter 9, Blythe Sizemore shares some of her own experience of harmful leadership and reflects on the process of healing from it. Sam Allbury then provides a careful nuance that authoritarian abuses do not argue against the use of authority, but for the right use of it. Chris Green’s chapter is then a helpful exploration of competitiveness and pride in ministry leadership, drawing on the example of Diotrophes in 3 John. We then move to very practical advice and pointers towards best practice in mentoring. Marcus Honeysett warns against mentors ever becoming masters. This then leads us to what is one of the most disturbing chapters in the book. Sushila Ailawadi details heartbreaking examples of abuse of women in her home Indian culture. Tragically, what is true in the culture is also true in the church. It is a sober warning to Western readers who may be quick to see what’s wrong in another culture, but blind to the faults in their own. Tasha Chapman in chapter 14 addresses the fact that many women in our churches are not treated with dignity and respect as partners in God’s kingdom work. She suggests multiple ways church leadership can honor women. Chapter 15 is Mark Stirling’s extended reflection on the often-subtle signs and symptoms of unhealthy church leadership, arguing that, though none of these is necessarily diagnostic of abuse, they should all cause us to ask good questions. Mark Meynell’s conclusion suggests ways to apply all of this as well as guarding us against some of the pitfalls along the way.

This book is offered with the prayer that in some way it may help shape leadership culture and practice so that God’s people may be served by their leaders to flourish individually and collectively, and may then demonstrate in their love for one another the presence and character of the God who is in their midst.

We pray that many will see and fear, and put their trust in the Lord (Ps 40:3 ESV).

Part 1

Biblical and Theological Foundations

1

Imitating the Mindset of Christ

Mark Stirling

Introduction and Aims

The idea at the heart of this chapter (and of this book) is simple: power and leadership are the means of giving oneself to others, not the means of getting something for oneself from others. Simple to understand, harder to apply.

Believers are commanded in Phil 2:5 to imitate Jesus’ attitude to his equality with God. The articulation of Christ’s attitude to rights and power in Phil 2:6–11 is radically at odds with popular conceptions, not just in the world, but also, sadly, in the church. Leadership must never be the means of self-advancement, self-assertion, or selfish gain. Rather, it is for the service and blessing of others. Consequently, any reversal of the direction from self-giving to self-gain is, by definition, a misuse or an abuse of power. This is the central theological and practical burden of this book.¹

Our approach in this volume is to address misuse of power by leaders in explicitly biblical and theological, rather than exclusively psychological, terms, so as to avoid reduction of the diagnosis to bad behavior by a few bad leaders. How we understand power and its misuse depends on our understanding of God himself—who he is, what he is like, and what he wants from us. Paul’s articulation of Jesus’ model in Philippians and how it is to be imitated will help us address these questions. We will then observe a couple of biblical examples of application of the pattern found in Phil 2 before concluding with the challenge that misuse of power by leaders misrepresents God’s character and, in bearing his name in vain, breaks the third commandment.

Philippians 2:1–12: The Paradigm of Power

The heart of Phil 2:1–11 is a command to disciples to have a mindset patterned after Christ’s attitude to his equality with God. The passage raises multiple interpretive questions which go beyond the scope of this project.² Here, rather than proceeding verse-by-verse, we will first consider the wider contextual picture, then examine the use of Isa 45 in Phil 2:9–11, before going backwards to the exegetical details of Phil 2:5–8.

It is worth setting out a literal translation of the text of Phil 2:5–11 in order to highlight the interpretive issues:

Think this way, which is also in Christ Jesus, who [though being or precisely because he was] in the form of God did not consider [his] equality with God as [something he already had and needed to hold tight to or something he did not have to which he aspired], but [emptied himself or poured himself out] (by) taking the form of a servant, (by) being born as a man, and (by) being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient right up to death, even death of the cross. For this very reason, God hyper-exalted him and gave him the Name that is above every name, in order that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

The context and flow of thought of the passage is crucial in resolving these exegetical issues. However, it seems to me that Paul’s use of Isa 45—the name above all names given to Christ because of his humble self-giving—is the key to right interpretation.

Context

Paul’s concern for unity in the church of Philippi is widely noted (see, for example, his exhortation to Euodia and Syntyche in 4:2 to get on with each other). Unity for Paul is not a matter of an optional extra—a luxury if you can manage it. Rather, unity of believers is directly related to their union with Christ. Thus, Phil 2:1–2 is an exhortation to unity (complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind [Phil 2:2 ESV]) based on the believers’ gracious union with Christ in verse 1: So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit (Phil 2:1 ESV). In other words, if they are united to Christ, unity will follow.

This relationship between union and unity is key; to be united with Christ is inevitably to be united with other believers in the one new humanity (Eph 2:15) that is created as a result of Christ’s peacemaking work on the Cross (Eph 2:13–14). Unity of believers is therefore a demonstration of the efficacy of the cross, reconciling us to God vertically and to each other horizontally.³

Here in Philippians, Paul’s concern is with the attitudes and the relational qualities that foster and maintain unity and are expressive of union with Christ. The famous passage from Phil 2:5–11 in which Paul encourages the imitation of Christ’s mindset or thinking is bracketed on both sides with reference to union with Christ. It is those who have encouragement in Christ and participation in the Spirit (Phil 2:1) and who are practically outworking their salvation (Phil 2:12–18) who are to take on a set of attitudes and relational approaches that are supremely demonstrated in Christ (Phil 2:5). Imitation of these attitudes that promote unity is thus a fruit of being united to Christ, it does not unite to Christ.

The context of Phil 2 thus suggests that its purpose is to inculcate a particular way of thinking or attitude that is supremely demonstrated in Christ, and will be most conducive to unity in the church.

Flow of Thought

The flow of thought may be summarized as follows:

•Paul appeals to his readers to be united on the basis of their union with Christ (vv. 1–2).

•Unity among believers is expressed and fostered by a set of attitudes towards others—doing nothing out of selfish ambition or vainglory, in humility considering others more important, and looking out for others’ interests (vv. 3–4).

•This set of attitudes (the fruit of union with Christ) is commanded and is patterned after Christ’s supreme example (v. 5).

•Christ’s attitude is explained in verses 6–8—his way of thinking about his equality with God and the actions which flowed from that attitude.

•Because of this attitude of Christ’s and the actions that follow, he is hyperexalted and given the name above every name, citing Isa 45 (vv. 9–11)

•Therefore live out this salvation (vv. 12–18)

Paul’s Use of Isaiah 45

Much debate on Phil 2 has centered on what it means for Christ to empty himself (the theological term kenosis is derived from this Greek verb) or not to consider his equality with God a thing to be grasped, but we will look first at Phil 2:9–11 as the key to understanding verses 6–8.⁴

The flow of thought above clarifies the logic of the passage; God’s hyper-exalting of Christ in Phil 2:9 is introduced with a strong causal for this very reason. The exalting of Christ is therefore not despite the attitude and actions of 2:6–8, but because of them. Furthermore, God not only hyper-exalts, but also gives Christ the name above every name, applying Isa 45 to him in a bold and shocking move.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil

2

:

9

–

11

ESV)

Isaiah 45 is punctuated with the refrain that Yahweh alone is God and there is no other (Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21), culminating in the declaration that Yahweh alone saves:

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance. Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory. (Isa

45

:

22

–

25

ESV)

The nations are to turn to Yahweh alone for salvation. He will rule and reign and in Yahweh the seed (lit.) of Israel will be justified. Paul applies this text to Christ with the introduction for this very reason. Yahweh is the only God and only Savior who will rule supreme over the nations, and this, says Paul, is affirmed as the identity of Jesus demonstrated in the attitude and actions described in verses 6–8.⁵

Paul thus identifies Christ with Yahweh in the highest possible christological move. More than that, it is Christ, whose attitude towards his equality with God led him to empty himself, become human, become a servant and become obedient to the point of death on the cross, who is identified with Yahweh. The logic is that Christ did these things and for this very reason (v. 9), he is exalted and given the divine name of Yahweh.

The significance of this cannot be overstated; the giving of the divine name is not in spite of Christ’s course of self-giving self-sacrifice, but precisely because of it. To put it another way, Christ’s attitude and course of action is not a temporary departure from the divine character, but rather is the supreme demonstration of it, a demonstration that must be endorsed using Isa 45—This is Yahweh and this is what he is like.

God’s Fullness in Himself and the Incarnation of the Son

How does this then fit with an understanding of God? How might the character of God be consistent with this humble, self-giving sacrifice? Since doctrine of God is addressed in greater depth by the contributions of both Jared Michelson and Graham Shearer, I am merely introducing the topic here. The idea of God’s fullness in himself illumines Paul’s argument: God is eternally full and eternally satisfied in himself in Triune fellowship.⁶ He lacks nothing, needs nothing, wants nothing. God in himself needs nothing outside of himself to make himself complete or to realize his identity. This means, for example, that when God created the heavens and the earth, he did so not out of any need, certainly not out of loneliness and needing some creatures to relate to. Rather, the act of creation, is pure lavish gift—the outpouring from the fullness of his being. This has huge pastoral implications. We do not relate to a God who needs something from us. He does not depend upon us for anything. He will not throw a tantrum or sulk if we don’t give him what he wants.⁷ It is this God who becomes incarnate. Church fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria or John of Damascus reflected deeply on the nature of the incarnation, carefully articulating what it means for the divine and human to be united in the person of Christ, with no loss or diminishment of the divine nature. Cyril comments:

We must not think that he who descended into the limitation of manhood for our sake lost his inherent radiance and that transcendence that comes from his nature. No, he had this divine fullness even in the emptiness of our condition, and he enjoyed the highest eminence in humility, and held what belongs to him by nature (that is, to be worshipped by all) as a gift because of his humanity.⁸

Or, more simply, And the Word became flesh, without incurring change.⁹

From this perspective, Christ in the incarnation is fully God and loses nothing of the divine nature, which, being full and complete in itself, required nothing outside of itself for completion, fullness or to realize its identity. This means that whatever emptying (or kenosis) is in Phil 2:7, it does not represent any loss or diminution of the divine nature in the person of Christ.¹⁰

The logic of the passage is illuminated by considering these theological categories of fullness and incarnation without loss of divinity—the One who is full in eternal Triune fellowship needs nothing outside himself and therefore does not consider his equality with God a thing to be grasped, but by contrast empties himself and serves to the point of death.

What we see in Christ’s pattern of self-giving in his incarnation and passion is not a temporary diminution of his deity, nor a suspension of divine attributes. his course of action could not receive the application of Isa 45 were that the case.¹¹ Rather, when we look at the incarnation and the passion, we see the character of God himself in the supreme expression of image bearing. It seems to me that we are consistently tripped up in our considerations of this by our assumptions that power is the means to gain something and that for Jesus to humble himself must necessarily mean the suspension of the use of power that could avoid servanthood and the cross. When the logic of our assumptions is explored, we can see that it rests on denial at some level of the Son’s divine fullness in the incarnation. But, if God is full in himself and thus lacks nothing, then his posture towards his creation can be neither one of need nor of self-protection. It is one of lavish generosity and self-giving grace. The incarnation and passion, therefore, are expressions, transcriptions in flesh if you will, of the divine nature. Fullness is poured out towards and on behalf of others, needing neither to receive any return as though lacking something, nor to protect against harm, as though something could be taken away. We thus see in the kenosis of Phil 2 that divine fullness means a generous, self-giving love that needs nothing and withholds nothing precisely because it is already full and lacks nothing. This then means that Paul’s command to think in a way patterned after Christ’s self-understanding of his equality with God principally concerns giving in love out of fullness and never using power to gain what is lacked or to protect against perceived threat. If this is what it means to be restored in his image, the ethical implications are revolutionary.

Christ’s Mindset and Actions

This passage hinges at v. 5 as already noted, literally Think this among you which is also in Christ Jesus. This points backwards to the previous verses, in which certain attitudes (doing nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit, considering others more important than self and looking out also for the interests of others, vv. 2–4) that are expressive of union with Christ (v. 1) are to be emulated (the imperative Think this . . . in v. 5).¹² The argument pivots at this point to introduce and expand upon the example of Christ Jesus as the one who supremely demonstrates this way of thinking (vv. 6–8).

Verses 6–7 are the subject of a great deal of discussion and contention. It seems to me that keeping in mind the bigger picture as discussed above is vital, not least to guard us against needless speculation. Part of the problem in these verses is the difficulty of rendering the concepts into easy English. I will discuss it phrase by phrase—

•who being in the form of God (Phil 2:6)—the ESV at this point translates the participle concessively (though he was in the form of God) which we should note, is an interpretive move, rather than being demanded by the text. In view of the discussion above on the use of Isa 45, I think this is unjustified¹³ and should either be translated neutrally (being in the form . . . cf. NIV) or even causally (because he was in the form . . .). The point is that Paul’s exposition of Christ’s attitude emphasizes Christ’s divinity and his attitude towards it. Being in the form of God, he had all the rights, prerogatives, and power of deity.¹⁴ It is from this perspective that Paul’s argument proceeds. How does One who has equality with God use such equality and all that comes with it?

•"did not consider being equal with God ‘harpagmon’" (Phil 2:6)—I’ll leave the last word untranslated for now.¹⁵ Paul is exploring Christ’s attitude towards his equality with God. He did not consider it "harpagmon, but by contrast, followed the course of action described in the following verses; that is, incarnation, humble service, and sacrificial suffering to the point of death on the cross. Christ’s attitude towards his divinity and all the power and rights that accompany it is one of humility leading to service, suffering, and sacrificial death. These stand in opposition to harpagmon, which is therefore a way of thinking about power and rights that was the opposite of that exemplified by Christ. The NIV (2011) reflects this, translating did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. Harpagmon is therefore something that belongs to a person by right and is theirs to use as they wish for their own benefit.¹⁶ This understanding of the concept of harpagmon receives support in the considerations above of divine fullness. Christ, being full in himself, did not need to use his equality with God to get anything for himself, nor to protect himself from anything. He did not consider his divinity an advantage to exploit."¹⁷

•This brings us to the discussion of verse 7. He did not consider equality with God an advantage to exploit, but emptied himself (ESV) or made himself nothing (NIV). I don’t think either of these quite gets what Paul is saying here. Cyril points out that this emptying is given content by what follows;¹⁸ Christ’s emptying is expressed in taking the form of a servant, being in the likeness and appearance of man and humbling himself to death on the cross. Given the flow of argument of this passage, it seems to me that a much more fitting rendering in English would be poured himself out.¹⁹ The problem with emptied himself is that it simply invites the question of what? which seems to me not to be what Paul is concerned with here. If, however, the Son loses nothing of his deity in the incarnation—he undergoes no change with respect to his divine identity—then the logic of the passage pushes us towards the much more helpful poured himself out. The argument can be summarized—

a.The overall purpose of the passage is to encourage attitudes expressive of union with Christ that foster unity in Christ’s people.

b.These attitudes are described as humble consideration of others as more important than self, attention to the interests of others and doing nothing from selfish ambition.

c.These attitudes are supremely demonstrated in Christ’s attitude towards and use of his own equality with God.

d.He did not use this equality with God, which was his by right, as the means to gain something for himself as though he lacked anything, or to defend himself against the loss of anything.

e.Rather he used his equality with God and all the power and privilege associated with it to pursue the course of pouring himself out in humble service of others, to the point of death on the cross.

This seems to me to make sense of the particulars of this passage, the point of which is to show us the supreme example of One who had all the power in the universe at his command and chose to use it in humble, painful, costly, and loving service. Paul is effectively saying, Here is Christ with all the power of the universe at his disposal and he did not use it to get something for himself but used it to persevere on the road of self-giving love to the point of death. You are to do the same with whatever rights, power or privileges you have been given.

The parallel between this passage and John 13 is often observed. Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet is prefaced by the comment that he knew all things had been given into his hands (John 13:3). With all authority available to him, he served humbly—and when he had finished, instructed his disciples that he had just set them an example that they were to follow in their relationships with others (John 13:12–17). The point is the same—power is given not to enable personal gain, but to empower personal giving for the sake of others.

Reflection on his obedience to death (v. 8) further reinforces this. It is tempting to think of Christ as a helpless and innocent victim as he goes to the cross. Innocent he certainly is, but the biblical account seems at pains to disabuse us of the notion that he was helpless. In Gethsemane the night before when he is arrested, he rebukes the disciple who uses the sword to attempt to resist arrest, reminding the disciples that he could call twelve legions of angels to his side should he wish (Matt 26:53). Jesus is stressing that we must not think this course of action is forced upon him against his will. Rather, it is freely, willingly chosen. Thus, when Christ is tempted—If you are the Son of God, prove it and come down from the cross—it is infinitely sobering to realize he not only had the right but also the power to do so. All he had to do was issue the command, but he did not. He did not consider his equality with God advantage to be exploited, but instead poured himself out in obedience to the point of death, resisting the temptation to stop the pain, until he could cry out It is finished! and thereby secure redemption and eternal blessing. The cross itself is the triumph of humble service over selfish self-interest.

Summary: What is Power For?

This overview of Phil 2:5–11 allows us to draw some conclusions. Believers are to have a way of thinking that understands all they are and all they have been given (their rights, power, and privileges) are for the purpose of enabling them to give themselves to others, not to enable them to get something from others. This is the pattern we see in Christ and it demonstrates God’s character. Though it is commanded of all believers, I am applying it here particularly to leaders as their temptation to violate this pattern is exacerbated by their positional power and authority.

Definition: Use and Misuse of Power

One of the things this passage is not teaching us is that the answer to misuse or abuse of power is nonuse of power. Rather, it is showing us how power is to be used rightly as those who are united with Christ and being restored in his image. The passage does not call for the renunciation of power, but for its legitimate use. It is a common mistake to allow abuse to argue against right use and, instead of reforming or redeeming the use of power, simply run away from it, which solves nothing.

So, I propose a definition: Power is granted to empower humble, self-giving service of others for the sake of their growth and flourishing as creatures in God’s image. Any use of power to get something from others or to defend oneself against the cost of loving others is, by definition, misuse of power.

Fullness in Christ: How Christ’s Pattern is Imitated

For us to imitate this pattern depends on receiving from God in order to give to others, instead of exploiting others to gain what we feel we lack. This takes us to the heart of what is paradigmatic for all believers, not just Christian leaders.

For if fellowship with the Triune God is not enough to make you content and secure, then nothing will be. And if you are not content and secure in that Triune fellowship, then you will inevitably use the power available to you (whether formally from office or position, or informally from personal influence, relationships, time, money, career, etc.) to get from others what you perceive you lack or to defend yourself against perceived threat. And the problem with either of those is that they are the exact opposite of a biblical understanding of love and a violation of the pattern we observe in Phil 2.

Ephesians 2:18 is a beautiful one-sentence summary of communion with God enjoyed by believers: Through him (that is, through Christ), we both have access to the Father by the One Spirit. In the context of the rest of Eph 2, Paul is saying that those who are formerly dead in sins and transgressions (Eph 2:1–3) and are enemies of God and each other (Eph 2:12) are now, by God’s gracious intervention and through the peacemaking work of Christ on the cross (Eph 2:14–15), united to God and to each other in one new humanity (Eph 2:15). This is expressed in Eph 2:18 as access to the Father,