Search the Manger
Matthew 2: 1 – 12
I. Introduction
When Nathan was in kindergarten, we lived in Mississippi. His kindergarten school day went from 8:00 until 12:00 noon. This was a good way to ease Shauna into having both children in school. She still had half a day she could spend with Nathan.
One day during the Christmas season, Shauna had Nathan in the car with her as she drove around town running errands. While they were running errands, they were listening to a Christmas CD.
Nathan was singing along with the songs, being festive and Christmas-y when he stopped and asked a question. Nathan said, “Mommy, are all these songs Santa songs?” Shauna asked him what he meant. He said, “Are all these songs Santa songs, or are there any Jesus songs on this CD?”
Shauna told him that this was a CD of Santa songs. He said, “I want to listen to some Jesus songs.” So, I didn’t realize that we had this many Christmas CD’s, but Shauna put on another Christmas CD. This time it was one that had Jesus songs.
After the first few songs, Nathan asked another question: “Are all these songs Jesus songs?” Shauna said that they were. Nathan answered, “That’s not what I wanted. I wanted a little Santa and a little Jesus.”
I thought that was very cute that Nathan had figured out a difference between Santa songs and Jesus songs. I also thought it was cute that he had—quite by accident—stumbled onto our biggest problem of the Christmas season: We don’t seem to know what we are searching for. We want a little Santa and a little Jesus.
As Christians in America we celebrate Christmas by walking along a precariously thin line. Or as Nathan put it: we want a little Santa and a little Jesus.
Do you know what you are searching for this Christmas?
Read Matthew 2: 1 – 12
This is not the only story of Christmas visitors found in the Bible. Matthew tells us about the Wise Men, or the Magi who visited the “house” in Bethlehem. And Luke tells us about the shepherds who visited the stable in Bethlehem.
Both of these are stories about people in the Bible who were searching during the Christmas season. It has always been interesting to me that Matthew and Luke have made distinctly different contributions to the Christmas story. This is especially true of their descriptions of the first “visitors” to the Holy Family in Bethlehem.
I have often wondered why Matthew and Luke tell the Christmas story in different ways. Why didn’t they both tell the same story? Why didn’t at least one of the Gospels tell everything in one place? After all, if everything were in one place we wouldn’t have to turn to Matthew one week and Luke the next week…It would be much more convenient!
I believe the reason for this can be found in the motivations behind why Matthew wrote his Gospel and why Luke wrote his Gospel.
We don’t have to wonder why Luke wrote his Gospel. In fact, Luke tells us in Luke 1: 1 – 4…He tells us that there are other accounts of Jesus’ life. So, Luke accumulated all those resources and carefully investigated everything so that he could write an orderly account for Theophilus.
Theophilus is a funny name. On one hand, there is evidence that some men in the ancient world were named Theophilus. On the other hand, there is evidence that Luke is using the name as a symbol for a group of people who might read his Gospel. You see, the name Theophilus is made up of two Greek words…Theos = God…Philos = Love or Friend…Therefore, Theophilus is a Greek word that means “Lover of God” or “Friend of God.”
Since Luke used the Greek name Theophilus, I believe that Luke wrote his Gospel so that non-Jewish people—the Gentiles, like you and me—might learn about Jesus and trust Jesus as our Lord.
Therefore, Luke was the most Greek, or Gentile, of the Gospel writers. Luke used Gentile themes to write to Gentile men and women about Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Savior of the Gentiles.
Matthew, on the other hand, didn’t tell us why he wrote his Gospel.
However, when we read Matthew’s Gospel, I think we can pick up on some important themes and concerns that run throughout the book. In particular, Matthew goes to great lengths to show that the birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies about the Promised Messiah.
Matthew shows us that Jesus was born as fulfillment to Jewish prophecy. But, Matthew also shows us that Jesus lived in fulfillment of all the Jewish Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law by observing all aspects of the Law and never breaking a single commandment. Jesus fulfilled the Law by teaching us in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 – 7 that the Old Testament Law has not passed away…It continues to serve an important role in our lives as Christians…Followers of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Matthew was the most Jewish of the Gospel writers. Matthew used Jewish themes to write to Jewish men and women about Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Savior of the Jews.
II. Shepherds.
Luke—the most Gentile of the Synoptics—described the visit of the shepherds.
I usually imagine the shepherds as 10 year old boys wearing their fathers’ bathrobes, with the sleeves rolled up and the train of the robe filling the temple. But shepherds were grown men, who held the lowest of all positions in society.
Shepherds were despised by society because of the nature of their work.
Shepherds smelled like sheep!
Shepherds worked and sweated in the heat of the day.
Shepherds had no other option but to sleep outside—certainly a romantic idea if one were free to choose to sleep outside, but not romantic for those with no choice.
Shepherds were feared by business owners because they had earned for themselves the reputation of being thieves and untrustworthy.
Shepherds were rejected by the Jewish religious authorities, because they were considered unclean and unworthy to enter the temple without first being purified.
And yet, Luke described these same shepherds as the first visitors at the manger in Bethlehem. In fact, the shepherds did not just “show up” at the manger, they were beckoned by a choir of angels. God himself sent his angelic messengers to announce the birth of Jesus Christ his one and only begotten Son. And God invited shepherds!
The sweaty, the smelly, the disheveled were invited to be the first to meet the Lord. The unclean, the unworthy, the untrusted were ushered into the presence of God.
Since this was written by Luke to a Gentile audience, I believe the story of the shepherds has a Gentile message. By telling us that the shepherds were the first ones invited to see the Christ Child, Luke has just declared that the Jewish religion is inadequate. The very ones unworthy to enter the Temple knelt in the presence of God at Bethlehem.
III. Wise Men.
Matthew, on the other hand, did not condemn the Jewish religion. Rather, Matthew—the most Jewish of the Gospels—celebrated the unique role of the Jewish religion by describing the visit of the Magi.
Who were the Magi? We have traditionally called them “Wise Men.”
They may have been astronomers—star gazers. One day they noticed a “new star in the east.”
I am certainly not an expert in astronomy, but I assume it would take a lot of effort to be so familiar with the constellations and all the millions of stars in the sky that someone would recognize a “new star.”
It seems that the Magi may have been religious people. Something told them that this “new star” was the birth announcement of a new religious leader. Of course this was no ordinary religious leader. This was the Messiah, the one promised by and for the Jews.
I don’t know what might have prompted the Magi to travel to Israel. But their response to Jesus and the gifts they brought imply worship and recognition of his divine nature.
Gold was something that only royal families could afford and was a present fit for a King…
Frankincense was an incense that was burned as a part of the Jewish sacrificial system and was a present fit for a priest…
Myrrh was a perfume that was used to anoint the body of a dead person and was a gift fit for someone about to die…
Matthew’s story of visitors who traveled a great distance to find the only person in all the earth who could be our King, Priest and Crucified Lord implies that there was something missing in all the religions of the world.
That missing piece could only be supplied in Bethlehem! Therefore, we see in the visit of the Wise Men one more Jewish Scripture fulfilled! God’s promise to Abraham was fulfilled. Abraham’s descendants became a blessing to all the earth.
IV. Conclusion
I believe that we can find what we are searching for this Christmas if we would just look at these two stories together.
Matthew teaches us that there is something unique about the Jewish Messiah. God has revealed himself and his salvation uniquely to the Jews, and God has provided salvation ONLY through Jesus the Messiah. No matter where you are from or what you might have once believed…Your religion is inadequate. There is no salvation without Jesus.
And Luke teaches us that salvation extends beyond the Jews; salvation is for everyone.
Jesus doesn’t care how dirty and smelly and rejected other people think you are. Everyone is invited…Everyone is welcome…
All you have to do is come…All you have to do is believe!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008: Jesus: Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace
Jesus: Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace
Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
I. Introduction.
Bailout. That is a word we have heard a lot lately. First it was the banking and mortgage industry that needed a bailout. Now it is the Big Three—General Motors, Chrysler and Ford who are asking for a bailout.
The technical definition of a “bailout” is to give financial assistance to a business or individual in order to save it / them from financial ruin.[1] In most cases, a bailout is a last ditch effort to save a business that is perceived to be necessary to the greater good. The banking and mortgage bailout was thought to be necessary to keep American families from losing our homes. The automaker bailout is thought to be necessary to keep certain areas of the country from experiencing widespread unemployment—and perhaps to protect American exportation.
In other words, a bailout is financial salvation. It is doing something for someone what they could not do for themselves. The banking industry could not save itself, so they turned to the government for salvation. The automakers could not save themselves, so they have turned to the government to save them.
That leads me to ask a couple of questions… First, if we could not trust businessmen to run the automobile industry, what makes us think politicians could do a better job? Second, can the government truly save us?
Financial problems are not our greatest problems. Our greatest problems are spiritual. We think we can live without God. We think we do not need God to help us live and make daily decisions. We think we can solve all of our problems through human effort and intelligence.
However, we cannot save ourselves. We need God to do something for us that we could never accomplish for ourselves. In short, we need a “spiritual bailout.” And that is what Christmas is all about. Christmas is God’s spiritual bailout plan. God sent his only Son to earth to do for us what we could never do for ourselves.
Read Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
II. Context.
Isaiah was a prophet during a period of Israel’s history we commonly refer to as the Divided Kingdom. It would probably help us to discern exactly what the Bible means when it speaks of a prophet. We often use the word prophet to refer to someone who has the ability to predict events that will take place in the future. There is an element of truth in this, but it does not fully explain what prophecy means in the Bible. The full meaning of prophecy has to do more with “speaking God’s word to God’s people.” This is captured in the King James Version of the Bible by the introductory phrase, “Thus sayeth the LORD…”
In other words, the prophets of the Old Testament were men and women who received a message from God and then delivered that message to the community of God’s people. There are four things necessary for a biblical understanding of prophecy. First, there was a message from God. Second, there was a person—a prophet—who listened to what God had to say. Third, there was a spoken message delivered by the prophet. Fourth, there was a community who received the message from God that was delivered by the prophet.
Notice how God is involved in all four stages of prophecy. God delivered the message. God called the prophet. God inspired the public proclamation of the message. AND, the community which received the message was related to God as God’s own people. (This helps us to understand how prophecy shows up in the New Testament in every list of spiritual gifts. If prophecy is “speaking God’s word to God’s people,” then in modern day life prophecy is the same thing as “inspired preaching.”)
Not all prophecy in the Old Testament was predicting the future. Yet, in many cases, the words of the prophet did predict future events. This can be explained very simply by referring back to our definition of prophecy. If God really did give the message to the prophet to deliver to God’s people, the prediction would come to pass just as the prophet said. This is because God’s word is always true.
In Isaiah chapter one, Isaiah tells us that he was a prophet to the Southern Kingdom of Judah during the reigns of four kings: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. The Scripture we just read this morning falls during the period of time when Ahaz was the king. Specifically, it falls during a very tense period of international crisis.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel had formed an unholy alliance with the pagan nation of Aram. This Israel-Aram coalition had stormed the Southern Kingdom of Judah in an attempt to overthrow King Ahaz and take away his people and land. The army of Judah had been successful so far in this war, but Ahaz was worried.
God gave Isaiah a message to deliver to the people of Judah. The message included a sign from God. In fact, God told King Ahaz to ask for whatever sign he wanted. Ahaz refused to ask. Perhaps he was afraid God was trying to tempt him, but God was being serious. So serious in fact, that even though Ahaz never asked for a sign, God still gave him a sign.
Through Isaiah the prophet, God told Ahaz that he would never be defeated by the Israel-Aram coalition. They will not defeat you, because they are too weak. They will not defeat you, because God is not on their side. They will not defeat you, because God is on your side And, to prove that God was on Ahaz’ side, God gave him a sign.
It was a strange sign for war time. Perhaps in a time of war we would expect God to send fire from heaven to burn up Judah’s enemies, or perhaps a sea would part and the enemies would be drowned in the sea. But, God’s sign was nothing more than a baby boy. In Isaiah 7:14, God said, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel—which means God with us.” Isaiah continued, “He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.”
It seems strange that a baby can prove that God is with God’s people. It would seem more fitting for God to do something more supernatural, something not so common. Yet, God proved himself to Ahaz and the people of Judah through the birth of a baby.
This was not the only time God used a baby to prove that he was with his people. It happened again in Isaiah 9. Again, God used Isaiah to speak God’s word to King Ahaz and the people of Judah.
The darkness of Isaiah 9 is probably a reference to the war that was going on at that time. It refers to the uncertainty, the danger and the trouble they were experiencing. It could just as easily refer to the uncertainty, the danger and the trouble we are experiencing in 2008. But notice the comforting words of hope Isaiah offers to the people… “The people walking in darkness HAVE SEEN a great light.”
Isaiah was so confident in God’s hope that he spoke of it in past tense. He did not say, “The people walking in darkness WILL EVENTUALLY SEE a great light.” He said, “they have already seen a great light.” By using the past tense, Isaiah is communicating the fact that God’s hope for his people is an accomplished fact. It is not wishful thinking. It is confident assurance. Isaiah is confident, because he is speaking “God’s word to God’s people.” God does not lie. If God said it, it will come to pass. There was no room for wishful thinking in Isaiah’s prophecy.
And, once again, the sign of God’s truth was revealed in the birth of a baby. Of course, this was no ordinary baby. This baby was the hope of God’s people. This baby was so special that one name would not be sufficient to describe the character of this child. No. This child required four names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
III. Everlasting Father.
Each of the four names Isaiah used to describe the coming child contain two words, a noun and an adjective: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace (perhaps Peaceful Prince).
The name Everlasting Father is a strange name for a new born baby. On one hand, it would be impossible for a child to be born as a father. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a fragile little baby as everlasting or eternal.
Throughout the Hebrew Bible—the Old Testament—we find references to God as the Father of Israel. We can also find stories and references where the King of Israel functioned as a father-figure for the people. So, this might be a common reference to the son of the king. By virtue of his birth, everyone could acknowledge that one day he would grow into his role as the father-figure for God’s people.
However, I find in this a foreshadowing of one of Jesus’ themes found in the Gospel of John. In John 14, one of Jesus’ disciples—Philip—asked Jesus to show them the Heavenly Father. Jesus replied, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ (John 14: 9).”
Jesus addressed God as his Father and taught his disciples to address God as Father in prayer. BUT, Jesus also compared himself to God the Father and claimed to be of the same essence as the Father. I don’t want to go so far as to say Jesus claimed “equality” with God the Father, because Paul makes a point to say that Jesus did not “consider equality with God something to be grasped (Philippians 2: 6).” Yet, Jesus and the Father are One. To know the Son is to know the Father. They are of the same essence and nature. Jesus shared the same qualities and characteristics of God.
One of the characteristics of God that sets him apart from us is his eternity. God is eternal. You and I are not eternal. We are finite, temporary and limited by time and space. This makes it somewhat difficult for us to understand God’s eternal nature. Everlasting is perhaps the best we can do to understand eternity. There is no end to God. He is everlasting—lasting forever and ever and ever…
To say that God is eternal is to say that God cannot be measured. For example, I am a human being, and my life can be measured both in time and in space. My body is 5 foot 10 inches tall and weighs…You didn’t think I was really going to tell you how much I weigh. I have been alive for 37 years, 8 months, 1 week and 4 days. Time is one of the ways we can measure.
I have three children. Collin is 13 years old. Nathan is 10 years old. JoEllen is 3 years old. I don’t remember when I was 3, but I do remember when I was 10 and 13. I am not the same person today at 37 that I was at 3, 10 or 13. I have changed. Time is a measurement of the changes that have taken place in my life. To say that God is eternal is to say that God cannot be measured. God cannot be measured, because God does not change.
IV. Prince of Peace.
The fourth and final name used to describe the coming baby is “Prince of Peace.” We have reason to believe that Isaiah is pointing to the birth of King Ahaz’ own son who would eventually become king of Judah—Hezekiah. As the son of the sitting king, this new baby would be recognized immediately as a prince. All his life he would be treated like royalty, because one day he would become king. He stood to inherit everything the king currently holds—financial holdings, political power, even the war with the Israel-Aram coalition.
However, Hezekiah would be a different kind of king. He would not be like his father. Hezekiah’s birth was a promise of peace, not the continuation war.
You should not be surprised to hear that the Hebrew word for peace is “Shalom.” But it might surprise you that Shalom means something more than peace.
When you and I think of peace, we typically define it in terms of “the absence of conflict.” When the United States of America is at peace, it means that we are not fighting a war. When family life is peaceful, it means there is no conflict between us and our spouses. When the church is at peace, there is no one trying to fire the pastor. This is NOT what the Hebrew word Shalom means.
Shalom can be translated “peace.” But it can also be translated “well,” “whole,” or “complete.” In other words, Isaiah was not prophesying that God’s people would experience an absence of conflict in the future. Isaiah prophesied that God’s people would be made whole and complete through a future Prince of Shalom.
Hezekiah did not accomplish this wholeness for God’s people. He reigned as King of Judah for only 29 years. In fact, no political prince could offer wholeness to God’s people. There must be another baby, a true Prince of Peace.
V. Conclusion.
This was not the last time God’s hope for God’s people was confirmed in the birth of a baby. It happened in Isaiah 7; it happened again in Isaiah 9; and it happened a final time in the birth of Jesus. In fact, the writers of the New Testament have helped us to understand Isaiah’s prophecies about babies in terms of Jesus’ birth.
Sure, there was a baby born during the reign of King Ahaz with the name Immanuel. But that baby could not compare with Jesus—the unique Son of God. Jesus was the final fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that God would be present with God’s people.
Sure, there was a baby born during the reign of King Ahaz who would eventually support the weight of the government on his shoulders—probably Ahaz’ son Hezekiah. But, Hezekiah’s reign and life on earth were temporary and measurable. Jesus’ life is neither temporary nor measurable.
We might even say that the birth of Jesus was God’s “ spiritual bailout plan” for humanity. Through the birth of Jesus, God has done something for us that we could never have done for ourselves. He has brought us back to himself…through the birth of a baby boy!
[1] “Bailout,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout.
Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
I. Introduction.
Bailout. That is a word we have heard a lot lately. First it was the banking and mortgage industry that needed a bailout. Now it is the Big Three—General Motors, Chrysler and Ford who are asking for a bailout.
The technical definition of a “bailout” is to give financial assistance to a business or individual in order to save it / them from financial ruin.[1] In most cases, a bailout is a last ditch effort to save a business that is perceived to be necessary to the greater good. The banking and mortgage bailout was thought to be necessary to keep American families from losing our homes. The automaker bailout is thought to be necessary to keep certain areas of the country from experiencing widespread unemployment—and perhaps to protect American exportation.
In other words, a bailout is financial salvation. It is doing something for someone what they could not do for themselves. The banking industry could not save itself, so they turned to the government for salvation. The automakers could not save themselves, so they have turned to the government to save them.
That leads me to ask a couple of questions… First, if we could not trust businessmen to run the automobile industry, what makes us think politicians could do a better job? Second, can the government truly save us?
Financial problems are not our greatest problems. Our greatest problems are spiritual. We think we can live without God. We think we do not need God to help us live and make daily decisions. We think we can solve all of our problems through human effort and intelligence.
However, we cannot save ourselves. We need God to do something for us that we could never accomplish for ourselves. In short, we need a “spiritual bailout.” And that is what Christmas is all about. Christmas is God’s spiritual bailout plan. God sent his only Son to earth to do for us what we could never do for ourselves.
Read Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
II. Context.
Isaiah was a prophet during a period of Israel’s history we commonly refer to as the Divided Kingdom. It would probably help us to discern exactly what the Bible means when it speaks of a prophet. We often use the word prophet to refer to someone who has the ability to predict events that will take place in the future. There is an element of truth in this, but it does not fully explain what prophecy means in the Bible. The full meaning of prophecy has to do more with “speaking God’s word to God’s people.” This is captured in the King James Version of the Bible by the introductory phrase, “Thus sayeth the LORD…”
In other words, the prophets of the Old Testament were men and women who received a message from God and then delivered that message to the community of God’s people. There are four things necessary for a biblical understanding of prophecy. First, there was a message from God. Second, there was a person—a prophet—who listened to what God had to say. Third, there was a spoken message delivered by the prophet. Fourth, there was a community who received the message from God that was delivered by the prophet.
Notice how God is involved in all four stages of prophecy. God delivered the message. God called the prophet. God inspired the public proclamation of the message. AND, the community which received the message was related to God as God’s own people. (This helps us to understand how prophecy shows up in the New Testament in every list of spiritual gifts. If prophecy is “speaking God’s word to God’s people,” then in modern day life prophecy is the same thing as “inspired preaching.”)
Not all prophecy in the Old Testament was predicting the future. Yet, in many cases, the words of the prophet did predict future events. This can be explained very simply by referring back to our definition of prophecy. If God really did give the message to the prophet to deliver to God’s people, the prediction would come to pass just as the prophet said. This is because God’s word is always true.
In Isaiah chapter one, Isaiah tells us that he was a prophet to the Southern Kingdom of Judah during the reigns of four kings: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. The Scripture we just read this morning falls during the period of time when Ahaz was the king. Specifically, it falls during a very tense period of international crisis.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel had formed an unholy alliance with the pagan nation of Aram. This Israel-Aram coalition had stormed the Southern Kingdom of Judah in an attempt to overthrow King Ahaz and take away his people and land. The army of Judah had been successful so far in this war, but Ahaz was worried.
God gave Isaiah a message to deliver to the people of Judah. The message included a sign from God. In fact, God told King Ahaz to ask for whatever sign he wanted. Ahaz refused to ask. Perhaps he was afraid God was trying to tempt him, but God was being serious. So serious in fact, that even though Ahaz never asked for a sign, God still gave him a sign.
Through Isaiah the prophet, God told Ahaz that he would never be defeated by the Israel-Aram coalition. They will not defeat you, because they are too weak. They will not defeat you, because God is not on their side. They will not defeat you, because God is on your side And, to prove that God was on Ahaz’ side, God gave him a sign.
It was a strange sign for war time. Perhaps in a time of war we would expect God to send fire from heaven to burn up Judah’s enemies, or perhaps a sea would part and the enemies would be drowned in the sea. But, God’s sign was nothing more than a baby boy. In Isaiah 7:14, God said, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel—which means God with us.” Isaiah continued, “He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.”
It seems strange that a baby can prove that God is with God’s people. It would seem more fitting for God to do something more supernatural, something not so common. Yet, God proved himself to Ahaz and the people of Judah through the birth of a baby.
This was not the only time God used a baby to prove that he was with his people. It happened again in Isaiah 9. Again, God used Isaiah to speak God’s word to King Ahaz and the people of Judah.
The darkness of Isaiah 9 is probably a reference to the war that was going on at that time. It refers to the uncertainty, the danger and the trouble they were experiencing. It could just as easily refer to the uncertainty, the danger and the trouble we are experiencing in 2008. But notice the comforting words of hope Isaiah offers to the people… “The people walking in darkness HAVE SEEN a great light.”
Isaiah was so confident in God’s hope that he spoke of it in past tense. He did not say, “The people walking in darkness WILL EVENTUALLY SEE a great light.” He said, “they have already seen a great light.” By using the past tense, Isaiah is communicating the fact that God’s hope for his people is an accomplished fact. It is not wishful thinking. It is confident assurance. Isaiah is confident, because he is speaking “God’s word to God’s people.” God does not lie. If God said it, it will come to pass. There was no room for wishful thinking in Isaiah’s prophecy.
And, once again, the sign of God’s truth was revealed in the birth of a baby. Of course, this was no ordinary baby. This baby was the hope of God’s people. This baby was so special that one name would not be sufficient to describe the character of this child. No. This child required four names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
III. Everlasting Father.
Each of the four names Isaiah used to describe the coming child contain two words, a noun and an adjective: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace (perhaps Peaceful Prince).
The name Everlasting Father is a strange name for a new born baby. On one hand, it would be impossible for a child to be born as a father. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a fragile little baby as everlasting or eternal.
Throughout the Hebrew Bible—the Old Testament—we find references to God as the Father of Israel. We can also find stories and references where the King of Israel functioned as a father-figure for the people. So, this might be a common reference to the son of the king. By virtue of his birth, everyone could acknowledge that one day he would grow into his role as the father-figure for God’s people.
However, I find in this a foreshadowing of one of Jesus’ themes found in the Gospel of John. In John 14, one of Jesus’ disciples—Philip—asked Jesus to show them the Heavenly Father. Jesus replied, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ (John 14: 9).”
Jesus addressed God as his Father and taught his disciples to address God as Father in prayer. BUT, Jesus also compared himself to God the Father and claimed to be of the same essence as the Father. I don’t want to go so far as to say Jesus claimed “equality” with God the Father, because Paul makes a point to say that Jesus did not “consider equality with God something to be grasped (Philippians 2: 6).” Yet, Jesus and the Father are One. To know the Son is to know the Father. They are of the same essence and nature. Jesus shared the same qualities and characteristics of God.
One of the characteristics of God that sets him apart from us is his eternity. God is eternal. You and I are not eternal. We are finite, temporary and limited by time and space. This makes it somewhat difficult for us to understand God’s eternal nature. Everlasting is perhaps the best we can do to understand eternity. There is no end to God. He is everlasting—lasting forever and ever and ever…
To say that God is eternal is to say that God cannot be measured. For example, I am a human being, and my life can be measured both in time and in space. My body is 5 foot 10 inches tall and weighs…You didn’t think I was really going to tell you how much I weigh. I have been alive for 37 years, 8 months, 1 week and 4 days. Time is one of the ways we can measure.
I have three children. Collin is 13 years old. Nathan is 10 years old. JoEllen is 3 years old. I don’t remember when I was 3, but I do remember when I was 10 and 13. I am not the same person today at 37 that I was at 3, 10 or 13. I have changed. Time is a measurement of the changes that have taken place in my life. To say that God is eternal is to say that God cannot be measured. God cannot be measured, because God does not change.
IV. Prince of Peace.
The fourth and final name used to describe the coming baby is “Prince of Peace.” We have reason to believe that Isaiah is pointing to the birth of King Ahaz’ own son who would eventually become king of Judah—Hezekiah. As the son of the sitting king, this new baby would be recognized immediately as a prince. All his life he would be treated like royalty, because one day he would become king. He stood to inherit everything the king currently holds—financial holdings, political power, even the war with the Israel-Aram coalition.
However, Hezekiah would be a different kind of king. He would not be like his father. Hezekiah’s birth was a promise of peace, not the continuation war.
You should not be surprised to hear that the Hebrew word for peace is “Shalom.” But it might surprise you that Shalom means something more than peace.
When you and I think of peace, we typically define it in terms of “the absence of conflict.” When the United States of America is at peace, it means that we are not fighting a war. When family life is peaceful, it means there is no conflict between us and our spouses. When the church is at peace, there is no one trying to fire the pastor. This is NOT what the Hebrew word Shalom means.
Shalom can be translated “peace.” But it can also be translated “well,” “whole,” or “complete.” In other words, Isaiah was not prophesying that God’s people would experience an absence of conflict in the future. Isaiah prophesied that God’s people would be made whole and complete through a future Prince of Shalom.
Hezekiah did not accomplish this wholeness for God’s people. He reigned as King of Judah for only 29 years. In fact, no political prince could offer wholeness to God’s people. There must be another baby, a true Prince of Peace.
V. Conclusion.
This was not the last time God’s hope for God’s people was confirmed in the birth of a baby. It happened in Isaiah 7; it happened again in Isaiah 9; and it happened a final time in the birth of Jesus. In fact, the writers of the New Testament have helped us to understand Isaiah’s prophecies about babies in terms of Jesus’ birth.
Sure, there was a baby born during the reign of King Ahaz with the name Immanuel. But that baby could not compare with Jesus—the unique Son of God. Jesus was the final fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that God would be present with God’s people.
Sure, there was a baby born during the reign of King Ahaz who would eventually support the weight of the government on his shoulders—probably Ahaz’ son Hezekiah. But, Hezekiah’s reign and life on earth were temporary and measurable. Jesus’ life is neither temporary nor measurable.
We might even say that the birth of Jesus was God’s “ spiritual bailout plan” for humanity. Through the birth of Jesus, God has done something for us that we could never have done for ourselves. He has brought us back to himself…through the birth of a baby boy!
[1] “Bailout,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008: Jesus: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God
Jesus: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God
Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
I. Introduction.
I have always had a kind of fascination with the figure of speech known as an oxymoron. This is when we place two opposite words side by side to make a point. This includes phrases like: pretty ugly; jumbo shrimp; deafening silence; holy war; United Nations; top floor; long shorts; Cooperative Baptists; organized religion…
Today is the first Sunday of Advent. This is the beginning of the Christmas season. As Christian men and women, we ought to use these next four weeks to prepare ourselves for the coming of Jesus.
Since today is the first Sunday of Advent, I can tell you with all confidence that Christmas is only four weeks away! We can’t stop it. Christmas is coming. This means we have only four weeks to get ready for the two greatest oxymorons of all time.
First, we are preparing for Silent Night! Whoever wrote that song did not have small children in his home! In the past 13 years, Christmas Eve has NEVER been a Silent Night in our household.
Second, we are preparing for the coming of the King. Jesus came to earth as the earth’s rightful King. But, he did not come with the expected royal trappings. There was no pomp and circumstance surrounding his birth. The King came to earth as a lowly baby, born in a stable. He lived a humble life and died the death of a criminal. Jesus is a King whose life did not resemble the life of a traditional king.
The birth of Jesus is told in only two of the four Gospels. Matthew tells us part of the story, while Luke tells us another part of the story. Mark and John do not tell us anything about the story of Jesus’ birth. Both Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to connect the dots between the birth of Jesus and the prophecies of the Old Testament. They realized that Jesus’ birth was no ordinary birth. Rather, this was the fulfillment of something promised by God and hoped for by God’s people for hundreds of years.
It was no coincidence that Jesus was born of a virgin…It was prophesied long ago. It was no coincidence that Jesus would be the Incarnation of God…It was prophesied long ago.
Read Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
II. Context.
In v. 1, Isaiah predicted that a light would one day shine across the dark land…Light is the only universal religious symbol recognized by all major world religions…Light = Good . . . Dark = Evil.
Symbolically, Isaiah was predicting a day when something good or pure would penetrate into the darkness of this world and transform the evil world into a good world…Like the sun rising in the east on a cold dark morning.
The original setting for this passage was probably a celebrative occasion…Jewish tradition interprets this as a song of rejoicing when Hezekiah became king of Judah…Israel and Judah had been divided for a little over 200 years…Both nations had their good kings & bad kings…At times, each had been controlled by other, wicked empires…Specifically, both had fallen prey to Assyria…But the people remembered the promise God had made to David back in the “good old days.”
Judah had a wicked king, Ahaz for the past 20 years…Ahaz had built altars to Damascus gods throughout the land…Ahaz encouraged people to worship in the “high places”…Ahaz had made a treaty with the king of Assyria…Ahaz became even more wicked as he got older.
Now, Judah’s only hope lay in the hands of Ahaz’ son, Hezekiah…At the time of his father’s death, Hezekiah was 25 yrs old.
And Hezekiah did meet the people’s expectations…He restored the Davidic rule by struggling to make Judah independent of Assyria…He restored the proper religious practices to Judah by tearing down all the high places and temples of false worship.
But Hezekiah’s fulfillment of expectations was incomplete to say the least…He could not unite the 2 kingdoms into one nation…His political & religious reforms only lasted a short time, until his son Manasseh became king…He could not bring the everlasting peace that Isaiah & the people hoped for.
This does not surprise you and me, because we have the luxury of 2600 years hindsight…As we look back through time, we know that Isaiah’s prophecies were not fully realized until Jesus Christ came into this world…We know this because, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel writers have interpreted Isaiah as pointing to Christ.
Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the Messianic expectations…Only Jesus can claim to be the True Light penetrating this dark & evil world.
That is why the Gospel of John used several different occasions to describe Jesus as the True Light of the World…John 1: 5, “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”…John 8: 12, “Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.’”
But remember, Hezekiah and his 29 years as king were not the perfect fulfillment of the Messianic expectations…Once Hezekiah’s reign ended, the people were back in the same situation they were once in.
It was only after the birth of Jesus that we have true reasons to rejoice…Our slavery to sin & the eternal consequences of sin have been lifted from our shoulders like a yoke…Our battle against this evil world will one day cease.
III. Wonderful Counselor.
Counselor => Someone who gives advice or guidance…Specifically, someone who gives WISE advice—the kind of advice you want to receive…
In the past few weeks, the news media has given us daily reports about President-elect Barack Obama. One of the consistent stories has been Obama’s process of assembling his Presidential Cabinet. These men and women will be advisors and counselors to the new President. This is a newsworthy story, because we believe you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their advisors. If this is true about a President, it ought to be true about us. Who are your “advisors?” Who are your “counselors?”
Advice is a very unique thing. It is the ONLY thing in life we would rather give than receive. But often times, advice is a necessary thing. None of us has all the answers. No one can be an expert in every situation and circumstance of life. But usually, God places people in our lives who have been through similar circumstances. These people can help us to understand and help us to recognize the right and wrong things to do. Anyone can learn from his or her own mistakes. A wise person can learn from the mistakes of others.
Jesus is someone who has been where you are. He has faced temptation and overcome it without sin. He has faced pain and death beyond anything we could ever imagine, and he triumphed over pain and death. Jesus was disappointed by his friends. He felt the pain of broken relationships. He was disowned by his own family and betrayed by a close friend. Jesus has even wept at the grave of someone he loved.
On one hand, Jesus is a Wonderful Counselor, because he has been where we are. On the other hand, Jesus is a Wonderful Counselor, because of his nature. Jesus is no ordinary man. Jesus is God…Or, as Isaiah says…Jesus is Mighty God.
IV. Mighty God.
Make no mistake about it. Isaiah prophesied that Jesus is God. AND, Jesus himself claimed to be God. Now, what are we going to do about that?
I believe Jesus’ claims about himself leave us with only three options. We must decide: Was Jesus a Liar? Was Jesus a Lunatic? Is Jesus Lord?
A. Was Jesus a Liar?
Almost everyone who has ever read the Gospels says that Jesus was a good and wise teacher. In fact, that is what Gandhi said about Jesus. However, Jesus cannot be a good man if he was a liar.
When Jesus claimed to be God, he has forced us to choose between two options. Either Jesus is God, or Jesus is a liar and as a consequence, a bad person. To say Jesus is God is offensive to non-Christians. To say Jesus is a bad person is offensive to Christians. To say Jesus was a good person is an attempt to offend no one. But it is an offense to Jesus.
If Jesus were a liar, then perhaps we can find his motive for lying. Everyone who lies is motivated by some selfish reason. Lying is an attempt to gain money, fame, pleasure or power. But, Jesus got none of these from his claim to be God. Instead, Jesus lived a life of poverty, hated by the world, tortured and eventually killed. Jesus even shunned all attempts people made to enthrone him as a political ruler. Jesus spent his time with the poor and oppressed, not the powerful elite.
B. Was Jesus a Lunatic?
There are people in mental health institutions who believe they are God. Perhaps Jesus did not intentionally lie to us. Perhaps he genuinely believed he was God, but was wrong about it.
People who have what is known as a “divinity complex” demonstrate certain diagnosable characteristics. They are egotistical, narcissistic, predictable and unable to love others. These characteristics do not fit what history says about Jesus. Jesus demonstrated wisdom by the answers he gave to his critics. He considered the needs of other people. He was unpredictable in the ways he lived and responded to others. And, Jesus showed love for other people by the way he ministered to needs and eventually gave his life as a sign of God’s love for us.
C. Is Jesus Lord?
If Jesus was not a Liar or a Lunatic, then we should take him at his word. He is the Son of God, who lived as an example for us and died to give us forgiveness of sin. God sent his Son to search for you. All of our efforts to search for God will fail. But God’s effort to search for us will succeed in our answer to the question: Who do you believe Jesus is?
V. Conclusion.
Christmas is coming. That means Jesus is coming. Of course, there are lots of people who don’t really want to admit that. They change the word Christmas to the word X-Mas or Holiday. Some people exchange greetings like “Happy Holidays.” Sadly, they think they can keep Christ out of Christmas. But they can’t. Jesus is coming.
Wal-Mart cannot keep Christ out of Christmas. They cannot stop his coming. In fact, none of us can stop Christ from coming. He is coming either as our invited guest or an as unwelcomed intruder. But Jesus is coming.
Let’s welcome him as our Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God.
Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
I. Introduction.
I have always had a kind of fascination with the figure of speech known as an oxymoron. This is when we place two opposite words side by side to make a point. This includes phrases like: pretty ugly; jumbo shrimp; deafening silence; holy war; United Nations; top floor; long shorts; Cooperative Baptists; organized religion…
Today is the first Sunday of Advent. This is the beginning of the Christmas season. As Christian men and women, we ought to use these next four weeks to prepare ourselves for the coming of Jesus.
Since today is the first Sunday of Advent, I can tell you with all confidence that Christmas is only four weeks away! We can’t stop it. Christmas is coming. This means we have only four weeks to get ready for the two greatest oxymorons of all time.
First, we are preparing for Silent Night! Whoever wrote that song did not have small children in his home! In the past 13 years, Christmas Eve has NEVER been a Silent Night in our household.
Second, we are preparing for the coming of the King. Jesus came to earth as the earth’s rightful King. But, he did not come with the expected royal trappings. There was no pomp and circumstance surrounding his birth. The King came to earth as a lowly baby, born in a stable. He lived a humble life and died the death of a criminal. Jesus is a King whose life did not resemble the life of a traditional king.
The birth of Jesus is told in only two of the four Gospels. Matthew tells us part of the story, while Luke tells us another part of the story. Mark and John do not tell us anything about the story of Jesus’ birth. Both Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to connect the dots between the birth of Jesus and the prophecies of the Old Testament. They realized that Jesus’ birth was no ordinary birth. Rather, this was the fulfillment of something promised by God and hoped for by God’s people for hundreds of years.
It was no coincidence that Jesus was born of a virgin…It was prophesied long ago. It was no coincidence that Jesus would be the Incarnation of God…It was prophesied long ago.
Read Isaiah 9: 1 – 7.
II. Context.
In v. 1, Isaiah predicted that a light would one day shine across the dark land…Light is the only universal religious symbol recognized by all major world religions…Light = Good . . . Dark = Evil.
Symbolically, Isaiah was predicting a day when something good or pure would penetrate into the darkness of this world and transform the evil world into a good world…Like the sun rising in the east on a cold dark morning.
The original setting for this passage was probably a celebrative occasion…Jewish tradition interprets this as a song of rejoicing when Hezekiah became king of Judah…Israel and Judah had been divided for a little over 200 years…Both nations had their good kings & bad kings…At times, each had been controlled by other, wicked empires…Specifically, both had fallen prey to Assyria…But the people remembered the promise God had made to David back in the “good old days.”
Judah had a wicked king, Ahaz for the past 20 years…Ahaz had built altars to Damascus gods throughout the land…Ahaz encouraged people to worship in the “high places”…Ahaz had made a treaty with the king of Assyria…Ahaz became even more wicked as he got older.
Now, Judah’s only hope lay in the hands of Ahaz’ son, Hezekiah…At the time of his father’s death, Hezekiah was 25 yrs old.
And Hezekiah did meet the people’s expectations…He restored the Davidic rule by struggling to make Judah independent of Assyria…He restored the proper religious practices to Judah by tearing down all the high places and temples of false worship.
But Hezekiah’s fulfillment of expectations was incomplete to say the least…He could not unite the 2 kingdoms into one nation…His political & religious reforms only lasted a short time, until his son Manasseh became king…He could not bring the everlasting peace that Isaiah & the people hoped for.
This does not surprise you and me, because we have the luxury of 2600 years hindsight…As we look back through time, we know that Isaiah’s prophecies were not fully realized until Jesus Christ came into this world…We know this because, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel writers have interpreted Isaiah as pointing to Christ.
Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the Messianic expectations…Only Jesus can claim to be the True Light penetrating this dark & evil world.
That is why the Gospel of John used several different occasions to describe Jesus as the True Light of the World…John 1: 5, “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”…John 8: 12, “Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.’”
But remember, Hezekiah and his 29 years as king were not the perfect fulfillment of the Messianic expectations…Once Hezekiah’s reign ended, the people were back in the same situation they were once in.
It was only after the birth of Jesus that we have true reasons to rejoice…Our slavery to sin & the eternal consequences of sin have been lifted from our shoulders like a yoke…Our battle against this evil world will one day cease.
III. Wonderful Counselor.
Counselor => Someone who gives advice or guidance…Specifically, someone who gives WISE advice—the kind of advice you want to receive…
In the past few weeks, the news media has given us daily reports about President-elect Barack Obama. One of the consistent stories has been Obama’s process of assembling his Presidential Cabinet. These men and women will be advisors and counselors to the new President. This is a newsworthy story, because we believe you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their advisors. If this is true about a President, it ought to be true about us. Who are your “advisors?” Who are your “counselors?”
Advice is a very unique thing. It is the ONLY thing in life we would rather give than receive. But often times, advice is a necessary thing. None of us has all the answers. No one can be an expert in every situation and circumstance of life. But usually, God places people in our lives who have been through similar circumstances. These people can help us to understand and help us to recognize the right and wrong things to do. Anyone can learn from his or her own mistakes. A wise person can learn from the mistakes of others.
Jesus is someone who has been where you are. He has faced temptation and overcome it without sin. He has faced pain and death beyond anything we could ever imagine, and he triumphed over pain and death. Jesus was disappointed by his friends. He felt the pain of broken relationships. He was disowned by his own family and betrayed by a close friend. Jesus has even wept at the grave of someone he loved.
On one hand, Jesus is a Wonderful Counselor, because he has been where we are. On the other hand, Jesus is a Wonderful Counselor, because of his nature. Jesus is no ordinary man. Jesus is God…Or, as Isaiah says…Jesus is Mighty God.
IV. Mighty God.
Make no mistake about it. Isaiah prophesied that Jesus is God. AND, Jesus himself claimed to be God. Now, what are we going to do about that?
I believe Jesus’ claims about himself leave us with only three options. We must decide: Was Jesus a Liar? Was Jesus a Lunatic? Is Jesus Lord?
A. Was Jesus a Liar?
Almost everyone who has ever read the Gospels says that Jesus was a good and wise teacher. In fact, that is what Gandhi said about Jesus. However, Jesus cannot be a good man if he was a liar.
When Jesus claimed to be God, he has forced us to choose between two options. Either Jesus is God, or Jesus is a liar and as a consequence, a bad person. To say Jesus is God is offensive to non-Christians. To say Jesus is a bad person is offensive to Christians. To say Jesus was a good person is an attempt to offend no one. But it is an offense to Jesus.
If Jesus were a liar, then perhaps we can find his motive for lying. Everyone who lies is motivated by some selfish reason. Lying is an attempt to gain money, fame, pleasure or power. But, Jesus got none of these from his claim to be God. Instead, Jesus lived a life of poverty, hated by the world, tortured and eventually killed. Jesus even shunned all attempts people made to enthrone him as a political ruler. Jesus spent his time with the poor and oppressed, not the powerful elite.
B. Was Jesus a Lunatic?
There are people in mental health institutions who believe they are God. Perhaps Jesus did not intentionally lie to us. Perhaps he genuinely believed he was God, but was wrong about it.
People who have what is known as a “divinity complex” demonstrate certain diagnosable characteristics. They are egotistical, narcissistic, predictable and unable to love others. These characteristics do not fit what history says about Jesus. Jesus demonstrated wisdom by the answers he gave to his critics. He considered the needs of other people. He was unpredictable in the ways he lived and responded to others. And, Jesus showed love for other people by the way he ministered to needs and eventually gave his life as a sign of God’s love for us.
C. Is Jesus Lord?
If Jesus was not a Liar or a Lunatic, then we should take him at his word. He is the Son of God, who lived as an example for us and died to give us forgiveness of sin. God sent his Son to search for you. All of our efforts to search for God will fail. But God’s effort to search for us will succeed in our answer to the question: Who do you believe Jesus is?
V. Conclusion.
Christmas is coming. That means Jesus is coming. Of course, there are lots of people who don’t really want to admit that. They change the word Christmas to the word X-Mas or Holiday. Some people exchange greetings like “Happy Holidays.” Sadly, they think they can keep Christ out of Christmas. But they can’t. Jesus is coming.
Wal-Mart cannot keep Christ out of Christmas. They cannot stop his coming. In fact, none of us can stop Christ from coming. He is coming either as our invited guest or an as unwelcomed intruder. But Jesus is coming.
Let’s welcome him as our Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Future Focus Committee Report and Motion
Below is a copy of my presentation to the Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting on Monday, November 10, 2008. This is the manuscript I prepared and had in front of me. The actual words that came out of my mouth were probably a little different.
==========
Before I present the recommendation from the Future Focus Committee, I want to say “Thank you” to Joy Fenner, Mike Masser, Jeff Raines, John Petty and Steve Dominy for appointing me to this committee. I want to say “thank you” first, because once the discussion begins, I might not feel as grateful.
Leonard Sweet tells a story about a church that extended a call to a new pastor. As the new pastor stood before the congregation to accept the call, he announced: “I am going to lead this church into the Twentieth Century.” The chairman of the search committee corrected the new pastor, “You mean the Twenty-FIRST Century.” The pastor said, “Slow down. Let’s go one century at a time.”
When the Baptist General Convention of Texas was formed in 1886 at the First Baptist Church of Waco, it was the merger of two Baptist bodies—the Baptist General Association and the Baptist State Convention. Our forefathers created the very best convention structure the Nineteenth Century had to offer.
In the Twentieth Century, there were three study committees appointed to study the work of the convention and make recommendations for change—1957, 1966 and 1995. These committees made numerous recommendations to the convention. Some of these recommendations were accepted, and many were rejected. The result was a large, bureaucratic, Twentieth Century convention structure.
The Future Focus Committee is the first study committee appointed in the Twenty-First Century. We believe our task is to move our state convention into the Twenty-First Century. Granted, the rest of the world entered the Twenty-First Century in 2001.
In our first Future Focus Committee meeting, we discussed two possible recommendations we might suggest at the 2009 annual meeting. On one hand, we could spend two years studying the convention and return to you with a recommendation to do nothing—to leave the Twentieth Century structures in place. On the other hand, we could return to this convention with recommendations for change.
We have rejected the first option. We will not return to you next year with recommendations to remain the same.
The circumstances which led to the formation of the Future Focus Committee can be described as a “perfect storm” of external and internal factors. External Factors include: rise of post-denominationalism; decline in baptisms and membership in all denominations; the loss of the World War 2 generation which includes the best stewards in all our churches; a national economic crisis; and the loss of investment income for our convention. Internal Factors include: a ten year decline in Cooperative Program gifts; a reduced 2009 budget that reflects our current economic reality; a loss of trust among our members; and decreased participation in convention activities—specifically a decrease in young adults’ participating in the convention.
However, there is one good Internal Factor we can report. We have a new Executive Director who has come in with a vision for our convention to identify and fulfill our Kingdom Assignment—to share the hope of Christ with every person in the state of Texas by Easter Sunday, 2010.
Our final report will be presented to this convention at the 2009 annual meeting. The final report will recommend changes for our convention. We will present only one change to be addressed at this annual meeting. In the first business session this afternoon, I will present a motion from our committee recommending that we change the name of our convention. This is the beginning of something new—a Twenty-First Century convention for all Texas Baptists.
We have prepared a handout to explain the committee's rationale for changing the name of the convention. You will receive this handout from the ushers as you leave the room--following the business session.
==========
On behalf of the Future Focus Committee, I move to restate the articles of incorporation to include changing the name of the organization to the Texas Baptist Convention and to amend the constitution to reflect this change.
==========
Before I present the recommendation from the Future Focus Committee, I want to say “Thank you” to Joy Fenner, Mike Masser, Jeff Raines, John Petty and Steve Dominy for appointing me to this committee. I want to say “thank you” first, because once the discussion begins, I might not feel as grateful.
Leonard Sweet tells a story about a church that extended a call to a new pastor. As the new pastor stood before the congregation to accept the call, he announced: “I am going to lead this church into the Twentieth Century.” The chairman of the search committee corrected the new pastor, “You mean the Twenty-FIRST Century.” The pastor said, “Slow down. Let’s go one century at a time.”
When the Baptist General Convention of Texas was formed in 1886 at the First Baptist Church of Waco, it was the merger of two Baptist bodies—the Baptist General Association and the Baptist State Convention. Our forefathers created the very best convention structure the Nineteenth Century had to offer.
In the Twentieth Century, there were three study committees appointed to study the work of the convention and make recommendations for change—1957, 1966 and 1995. These committees made numerous recommendations to the convention. Some of these recommendations were accepted, and many were rejected. The result was a large, bureaucratic, Twentieth Century convention structure.
The Future Focus Committee is the first study committee appointed in the Twenty-First Century. We believe our task is to move our state convention into the Twenty-First Century. Granted, the rest of the world entered the Twenty-First Century in 2001.
In our first Future Focus Committee meeting, we discussed two possible recommendations we might suggest at the 2009 annual meeting. On one hand, we could spend two years studying the convention and return to you with a recommendation to do nothing—to leave the Twentieth Century structures in place. On the other hand, we could return to this convention with recommendations for change.
We have rejected the first option. We will not return to you next year with recommendations to remain the same.
The circumstances which led to the formation of the Future Focus Committee can be described as a “perfect storm” of external and internal factors. External Factors include: rise of post-denominationalism; decline in baptisms and membership in all denominations; the loss of the World War 2 generation which includes the best stewards in all our churches; a national economic crisis; and the loss of investment income for our convention. Internal Factors include: a ten year decline in Cooperative Program gifts; a reduced 2009 budget that reflects our current economic reality; a loss of trust among our members; and decreased participation in convention activities—specifically a decrease in young adults’ participating in the convention.
However, there is one good Internal Factor we can report. We have a new Executive Director who has come in with a vision for our convention to identify and fulfill our Kingdom Assignment—to share the hope of Christ with every person in the state of Texas by Easter Sunday, 2010.
Our final report will be presented to this convention at the 2009 annual meeting. The final report will recommend changes for our convention. We will present only one change to be addressed at this annual meeting. In the first business session this afternoon, I will present a motion from our committee recommending that we change the name of our convention. This is the beginning of something new—a Twenty-First Century convention for all Texas Baptists.
We have prepared a handout to explain the committee's rationale for changing the name of the convention. You will receive this handout from the ushers as you leave the room--following the business session.
==========
On behalf of the Future Focus Committee, I move to restate the articles of incorporation to include changing the name of the organization to the Texas Baptist Convention and to amend the constitution to reflect this change.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Texas Baptist Convention
Stephen Hatfield and I serve as co-chairs for a Baptist General Convention of Texas committee known as the Future Focus Committee. This committee was formed as a result of a motion made from the floor of the 2007 Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting in Amarillo. The motion which created our committee reads:
I move that the officers of the BGCT and the officers of the Executive Board appoint a study committee of no more than 25 members to consider the shared vision of the BGCT.
The committee would meet after the new Executive Director has been selected and make reports to the Executive Board at their regularly scheduled meetings. A final report will be made no later than the 2009 Annual Meeting.
The committee will study, analyze and project income for the BGCT and address relationships between the BGCT and its institutions.
The purpose of this committee is to determine the best use of resources to win Texas and the world to Jesus Christ and to encourage and support the ministries to which God has called us.
I move that the officers of the BGCT and the officers of the Executive Board appoint a study committee of no more than 25 members to consider the shared vision of the BGCT.
The committee would meet after the new Executive Director has been selected and make reports to the Executive Board at their regularly scheduled meetings. A final report will be made no later than the 2009 Annual Meeting.
The committee will study, analyze and project income for the BGCT and address relationships between the BGCT and its institutions.
The purpose of this committee is to determine the best use of resources to win Texas and the world to Jesus Christ and to encourage and support the ministries to which God has called us.
Stephen and I began meeting with the Baptist General Convention of Texas president (Joy Fenner) and executive director (Randel Everett) in March. This was within Dr. Everett’s first couple of weeks of employment as the new executive director.
In our first meeting, Dr. Everett presented us with a set of three questions to determine the mission and values of our state convention. What is the Baptist General Convention of Texas passionate about? What does the Baptist General Convention of Texas do better than anyone else in the world? What does the Baptist General Convention of Texas do that duplicates what others do as well or better than we do?
Stephen and I asked Dr. Everett to present these same questions to the full Future Focus Committee at our first meeting in May 2008. This began a lively exchange of ideas which could be categorized as our “dreams” and our “fears.”
One topic we have addressed numerous times in our committee meetings is the way church people in Texas view the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Sadly, many people do not understand our historic Baptist polity which places the local church at the top of the decision making process and organizational chart. As a result, many people equate the Baptist General Convention of Texas with the building which houses the Executive Board Staff in Dallas.
The “Baptist Building” in Dallas is not the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The Baptist General Convention of Texas is a fellowship of cooperating churches who together accomplish the work of evangelism / missions, Christian education and advocacy for the “least of these” among us.
In November 2009, the Future Focus Committee will make our final report to the annual meeting of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Our final report will contain a new vision for the future. This new vision will contain a clear description of our values as well as changes in the methods we use to implement our values. This final report is not complete. We have defined our vision and our values in our first three meetings. We will devote the remainder of our time to work out the details of implementing our vision and values for the future.
On Monday, November 10, Stephen Hatfield and I will make a recommendation from the Future Focus Committee to change the name of the Baptist General Convention of Texas to the Texas Baptist Convention. This recommendation has been reported in at least two news articles:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8752&Itemid=53
http://www.bgct.org/texasbaptists/Page.aspx?pid=5581&srcid=178
We believe Texas Baptist Convention describes who we are and the way we often describe ourselves in informal conversations. We call ourselves “Texas Baptists” and even used that terminology as the title of the sesquicentennial history of our state convention!
We also believe changing our name to the Texas Baptist Convention provides us with an opportunity to forge our own unique identity not tied to any national organization. As the Texas Baptist Convention, we can provide a mechanism for all Texas Baptist men, women and churches to cooperate around our shared vision and values regardless of national affiliation.
This proposal is not the sum total of the Future Focus Committee’s accomplishments. It is one part—the first step—of a broad strategy which is currently being worked out in detail. The full details will be presented in our final report at the 2009 annual meeting. Our goal is to have this final report in written form before the September 2009 Executive Board meeting. This will ensure enough time for our report to be printed and reviewed by all messengers before the annual meeting.
The name change will be presented on Monday, because it requires two votes at consecutive annual meetings before it can be implemented. Therefore, we need to begin the process of changing the name at this annual meeting in order to adopt the complete report at the 2009 annual meeting.
Stephen Hatfield and I urge all Texas Baptists to participate in the 2008 annual meeting in Fort Worth to voice your point of view and to vote your conscience. Since, this name change will require two votes at consecutive annual meetings, we will not actually adopt the name change until next year. An affirmative vote on Monday does not change the name of the convention. However, a negative vote on Monday prevents us from adopting the name change as a part of the Future Focus Committee’s final report in 2009.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008: Good and Faithful Servants
Good and Faithful Servants
Matthew 25: 14 - 30.
I. Introduction.
How should Christians respond to a struggling economy? What about the church? How should our church respond to the economic pressures we are facing?
I told you a week ago that the church is not exempt from economic woes. We depend on all our members to give voluntarily to support the work of the church. We don’t send you a bill every month. We don’t turn your family over to a collection agency if you have missed a payment. However, we do experience financial ups and downs as the economy goes up and down.
But Christians are not like the rest of the world. We are not like those who have no hope. We don’t worship the “golden bull” of Wall Street. We worship Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God. We store up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust cannot destroy.
If our greatest treasure is a heavenly treasure, then we ought to face economic uncertainty differently than the rest of the world. I have already answered the question for us this morning, but it is worth repeating. How should Christians respond to a struggling economy? How should our church respond? We should respond by being faithful to the work Jesus left us to do.
In the Gospel of Matthew, we read a story Jesus told us about being faithful.
Read Matthew 25: 14 – 30
Matthew 24 contains one of Jesus’ extended teachings known as the Eschatological Discourse. “Eschatological” is a word they teach us in seminary. Specifically, they teach us never to use words like “eschatological” in our sermons. It basically means, “end times.” Therefore, we ought to read this section of Scripture with the knowledge that Jesus is teaching us about the “end times.”
This does not mean Jesus gave us a timetable or a checklist to follow. No. Jesus never told us exactly what we could expect at the end of time. Rather, Jesus simply taught us two things. On one hand, the world we live in will not last forever. It is temporary and by nature will one day come to an end. On the other hand, Jesus taught us that we would have to wait. In fact, this is the primary thing Jesus taught us about the end of the created order. It will not happen when we think it will happen. We need to be prepared to wait for the end to come.
Throughout all Christian history, we can find evidence of men and women who thought they knew more about the end of the world than Jesus knew. Men and women have made predictions. And each time, those predictions have proven false. Perhaps if we spent more time listening to Jesus’ actual teachings about the end of the world, we might actually follow his advice. Wait. Be patient. Stay busy.
This parable is one of five parables in this section of the Gospel of Matthew. These parables are part of a longer discourse, spoken by Jesus to teach his disciples about the coming day of judgment. In Matthew 24: 3, the disciples asked Jesus to teach them the signs of the time so that they would know when the final judgment would come. But Jesus surprised everyone in Matthew 24: 36, by saying that there were no signs. He said, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
The five parables all focus on several common themes.
1. Judgment Day is really coming…It will come suddenly and unexpectedly.
2. It seems that judgment has been delayed by the master staying in a foreign country longer than anyone expected.
3. The characters in the parables are divided into two groups…Those who are ready…Those who are not ready…
4. Those who are ready will be rewarded in judgment.
5. Those who are not ready will be punished in judgment.
The theme of this parable is “Being Ready” for the Lord’s return. The parable defines readiness as “Responsibility”—especially responsibility with the Lord’s resources while he is not physically present on earth.
The master entrusted his own money to his servants so they could take care of it while he was away. He gave to each one according to his ability. Therefore, the fact that he gave five talents to one, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third indicates that he trusted them differently. He trusted one more than the others and one less than the others.
Many have interpreted this parable in terms of human abilities because of the use of the English word “talent.” However, this parable is actually about money. The talent was the monetary measurement equal to 6,000 denarii. One denarius was the usual daily wage of a working man—it was the minimum wage of the First Century. If a man worked six days a week with no time off, he could earn one talent in about 20 years.
Since we do not trade in either denarii or talents, let’s estimate dollar amounts for this parable. Minimum wage is $6.55 per hour, or just over $13,000 annually. This means that in 20 years, a minimum wage employee would make a little over $200,000.
Therefore, the servant who was entrusted with one talent actually received $260,000; the servant who was entrusted with two talents received $520,000; and the servant who was entrusted with five talents received $1.3 Million. All three of these servants were trusted to take care of large sums of money—a fortune.
The issue at stake here is not properly understood in the amount of money. The issue is how responsible, or faithful, were the servants with what they had received. At stake here is what the servants will do when no one is looking.
Since this is a parable about the coming judgment that teaches us how important it is for us to be ready, we might expect the story to tell us about a wealthy master and his TWO servants. But that is not the case at all. This is a story about a wealthy master and his THREE servants. We might expect the parable to illustrate its point by telling about one servant who was ready and one who was not ready. But with three servants, the story gets a little more complicated.
II. The Successful Servant.
We believe that the three servants were each highly respected and trusted members of their master’s workforce. However, we also believe that the master did not trust them equally. If the master had trusted all three servants equally, then he would have divided his wealth into three equal parts to distribute among the three. This servant was trusted more than any of the others and received the most money.
Then the servant went to work with his share of the money and invested it wisely. We don’t know what he did with the money. All we know is that he was willing to take a pretty big risk in order to double the money from $1.3 Million to $2.6 Million.
When the master returned, he was pleased that the servant had earned an additional $1.3 Million. He rewarded this servant by commending him in front of all the other servants and inviting him into the master’s happiness—perhaps this is a special celebration, or at least it is a special, joyful relationship between the master and the servant.
From the world’s point of view, this servant received the most money…he made the most money…Therefore he was the most successful of the three…Is this God’s same view of what it means to be successful?
III. The Excellent Servant.
This servant was trusted a little less than the first. He received a little less than half of what the first servant received.
Just like the first servant, this servant also went to work investing his master’s money. And the same thing happened. We don’t know how he invested it, but it doubled his money…$520,000 became $1 Million…
It is always good when you can double your money. But even after his investment has doubled, it is still less than half of what the first servant has…$520,000 became $1 Million…But that is a far cry from $2.6 Million dollars… This servant was not the most successful of the three, but he did do his best with what he had been given.
In the world’s eyes, this servant was not the most successful. But he definitely did an EXCELLENT job. If we call the first servant the Successful Servant, then perhaps we can call this servant the Excellent Servant.
What was the master looking for? Was he looking for Success? Superiority? If so, then only the first servant would have pleased him. Verse 23 clearly states the master’s pleasure with this servant.
Read Verse 23… Does that verse sound familiar? This is exactly the same reward the first servant received… Read Verse 21
Since these two verse are exactly alike, I believe this is the key to interpreting the parable. God has not called us to be the most successful. God has not called us to be better than everybody else. NO! God has called us to do the very best we can possibly do with the resources and gifts he has blessed us with.
IV. The Servant Who Failed.
We often look at this servant and think that he wasn’t trusted. In fact he was trusted and was blessed with 20 years worth of salary—$260,000 in today’s money.
He had the same amount of time and the same amount of opportunity to act responsibly with the master’s money. Yet he failed.
Why did this servant fail? Because he acted out of fear of his master… Read verses 24 – 25. The other 2 acted out of love for master, they wanted to please him. This servant was afraid and wanted nothing more than to save his own life.
He didn’t think about his master. He didn’t think about the other servants. He only thought about himself and how he could continue to live the life he had always wanted to live.
There are times when we act like this servant. Anytime we respond to God out of fear of punishment, we fail just like this servant failed. Anytime we give a tithe to the church so that God has his share and will not be angry, we fail like this servant.
But anytime we give 100% of our time, money, abilities, etc—out of a desire to please God, we succeed like the first two servants.
V. Conclusion: Faithfulness and Stewardship.
The words the master spoke to the first two servants were identical: “Well done good and faithful servant.” The words spoken to the other servant were different: “You wicked, lazy servant!” In fact, I would argue that we should interpret these words as opposites.
For example, it is obvious to us that wicked is the opposite of good. But how often do we think of lazy as the opposite of faithful?
When we read this parable literally, we learn about how Christians ought to be faithful with the financial resources God has given us. And that is an important lesson for us to hear and remember in our current economic situation.
However, we can also read this parable spiritually. Jesus is coming back. He hasn’t come back yet, but he is coming back. How will we live and work in the meantime? How will Jesus find us upon his return?
Will Jesus find us good and faithful? Or will Jesus find us wicked and lazy?
Again, notice that in verse 21 and verse 23, the master’s joy was the same in each case. God does not require us to be the most successful. God is pleased with us when we are faithful, or excellent, with what we have been given.
The parable provides a good lesson in stewardship. Stewardship is an old KJV word which describes the concept of a person of lesser social standing taking care of the property of a person of a higher social standing. It is the same concept in our relationship with God. God does not need our money, our abilities, our time, etc… However, he asks that we use them for his glory and his kingdom until he returns.
God asks that we be faithful stewards. God honors us for our excellence in service. God does not demand that we advance to the top.
What has God entrusted to your care? I didn’t ask how much or what you thought you deserved. What are you doing with God’s gifts to you? Are you faithful, responsible, excellent enough to be trusted with more?
Matthew 25: 14 - 30.
I. Introduction.
How should Christians respond to a struggling economy? What about the church? How should our church respond to the economic pressures we are facing?
I told you a week ago that the church is not exempt from economic woes. We depend on all our members to give voluntarily to support the work of the church. We don’t send you a bill every month. We don’t turn your family over to a collection agency if you have missed a payment. However, we do experience financial ups and downs as the economy goes up and down.
But Christians are not like the rest of the world. We are not like those who have no hope. We don’t worship the “golden bull” of Wall Street. We worship Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God. We store up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust cannot destroy.
If our greatest treasure is a heavenly treasure, then we ought to face economic uncertainty differently than the rest of the world. I have already answered the question for us this morning, but it is worth repeating. How should Christians respond to a struggling economy? How should our church respond? We should respond by being faithful to the work Jesus left us to do.
In the Gospel of Matthew, we read a story Jesus told us about being faithful.
Read Matthew 25: 14 – 30
Matthew 24 contains one of Jesus’ extended teachings known as the Eschatological Discourse. “Eschatological” is a word they teach us in seminary. Specifically, they teach us never to use words like “eschatological” in our sermons. It basically means, “end times.” Therefore, we ought to read this section of Scripture with the knowledge that Jesus is teaching us about the “end times.”
This does not mean Jesus gave us a timetable or a checklist to follow. No. Jesus never told us exactly what we could expect at the end of time. Rather, Jesus simply taught us two things. On one hand, the world we live in will not last forever. It is temporary and by nature will one day come to an end. On the other hand, Jesus taught us that we would have to wait. In fact, this is the primary thing Jesus taught us about the end of the created order. It will not happen when we think it will happen. We need to be prepared to wait for the end to come.
Throughout all Christian history, we can find evidence of men and women who thought they knew more about the end of the world than Jesus knew. Men and women have made predictions. And each time, those predictions have proven false. Perhaps if we spent more time listening to Jesus’ actual teachings about the end of the world, we might actually follow his advice. Wait. Be patient. Stay busy.
This parable is one of five parables in this section of the Gospel of Matthew. These parables are part of a longer discourse, spoken by Jesus to teach his disciples about the coming day of judgment. In Matthew 24: 3, the disciples asked Jesus to teach them the signs of the time so that they would know when the final judgment would come. But Jesus surprised everyone in Matthew 24: 36, by saying that there were no signs. He said, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
The five parables all focus on several common themes.
1. Judgment Day is really coming…It will come suddenly and unexpectedly.
2. It seems that judgment has been delayed by the master staying in a foreign country longer than anyone expected.
3. The characters in the parables are divided into two groups…Those who are ready…Those who are not ready…
4. Those who are ready will be rewarded in judgment.
5. Those who are not ready will be punished in judgment.
The theme of this parable is “Being Ready” for the Lord’s return. The parable defines readiness as “Responsibility”—especially responsibility with the Lord’s resources while he is not physically present on earth.
The master entrusted his own money to his servants so they could take care of it while he was away. He gave to each one according to his ability. Therefore, the fact that he gave five talents to one, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third indicates that he trusted them differently. He trusted one more than the others and one less than the others.
Many have interpreted this parable in terms of human abilities because of the use of the English word “talent.” However, this parable is actually about money. The talent was the monetary measurement equal to 6,000 denarii. One denarius was the usual daily wage of a working man—it was the minimum wage of the First Century. If a man worked six days a week with no time off, he could earn one talent in about 20 years.
Since we do not trade in either denarii or talents, let’s estimate dollar amounts for this parable. Minimum wage is $6.55 per hour, or just over $13,000 annually. This means that in 20 years, a minimum wage employee would make a little over $200,000.
Therefore, the servant who was entrusted with one talent actually received $260,000; the servant who was entrusted with two talents received $520,000; and the servant who was entrusted with five talents received $1.3 Million. All three of these servants were trusted to take care of large sums of money—a fortune.
The issue at stake here is not properly understood in the amount of money. The issue is how responsible, or faithful, were the servants with what they had received. At stake here is what the servants will do when no one is looking.
Since this is a parable about the coming judgment that teaches us how important it is for us to be ready, we might expect the story to tell us about a wealthy master and his TWO servants. But that is not the case at all. This is a story about a wealthy master and his THREE servants. We might expect the parable to illustrate its point by telling about one servant who was ready and one who was not ready. But with three servants, the story gets a little more complicated.
II. The Successful Servant.
We believe that the three servants were each highly respected and trusted members of their master’s workforce. However, we also believe that the master did not trust them equally. If the master had trusted all three servants equally, then he would have divided his wealth into three equal parts to distribute among the three. This servant was trusted more than any of the others and received the most money.
Then the servant went to work with his share of the money and invested it wisely. We don’t know what he did with the money. All we know is that he was willing to take a pretty big risk in order to double the money from $1.3 Million to $2.6 Million.
When the master returned, he was pleased that the servant had earned an additional $1.3 Million. He rewarded this servant by commending him in front of all the other servants and inviting him into the master’s happiness—perhaps this is a special celebration, or at least it is a special, joyful relationship between the master and the servant.
From the world’s point of view, this servant received the most money…he made the most money…Therefore he was the most successful of the three…Is this God’s same view of what it means to be successful?
III. The Excellent Servant.
This servant was trusted a little less than the first. He received a little less than half of what the first servant received.
Just like the first servant, this servant also went to work investing his master’s money. And the same thing happened. We don’t know how he invested it, but it doubled his money…$520,000 became $1 Million…
It is always good when you can double your money. But even after his investment has doubled, it is still less than half of what the first servant has…$520,000 became $1 Million…But that is a far cry from $2.6 Million dollars… This servant was not the most successful of the three, but he did do his best with what he had been given.
In the world’s eyes, this servant was not the most successful. But he definitely did an EXCELLENT job. If we call the first servant the Successful Servant, then perhaps we can call this servant the Excellent Servant.
What was the master looking for? Was he looking for Success? Superiority? If so, then only the first servant would have pleased him. Verse 23 clearly states the master’s pleasure with this servant.
Read Verse 23… Does that verse sound familiar? This is exactly the same reward the first servant received… Read Verse 21
Since these two verse are exactly alike, I believe this is the key to interpreting the parable. God has not called us to be the most successful. God has not called us to be better than everybody else. NO! God has called us to do the very best we can possibly do with the resources and gifts he has blessed us with.
IV. The Servant Who Failed.
We often look at this servant and think that he wasn’t trusted. In fact he was trusted and was blessed with 20 years worth of salary—$260,000 in today’s money.
He had the same amount of time and the same amount of opportunity to act responsibly with the master’s money. Yet he failed.
Why did this servant fail? Because he acted out of fear of his master… Read verses 24 – 25. The other 2 acted out of love for master, they wanted to please him. This servant was afraid and wanted nothing more than to save his own life.
He didn’t think about his master. He didn’t think about the other servants. He only thought about himself and how he could continue to live the life he had always wanted to live.
There are times when we act like this servant. Anytime we respond to God out of fear of punishment, we fail just like this servant failed. Anytime we give a tithe to the church so that God has his share and will not be angry, we fail like this servant.
But anytime we give 100% of our time, money, abilities, etc—out of a desire to please God, we succeed like the first two servants.
V. Conclusion: Faithfulness and Stewardship.
The words the master spoke to the first two servants were identical: “Well done good and faithful servant.” The words spoken to the other servant were different: “You wicked, lazy servant!” In fact, I would argue that we should interpret these words as opposites.
For example, it is obvious to us that wicked is the opposite of good. But how often do we think of lazy as the opposite of faithful?
When we read this parable literally, we learn about how Christians ought to be faithful with the financial resources God has given us. And that is an important lesson for us to hear and remember in our current economic situation.
However, we can also read this parable spiritually. Jesus is coming back. He hasn’t come back yet, but he is coming back. How will we live and work in the meantime? How will Jesus find us upon his return?
Will Jesus find us good and faithful? Or will Jesus find us wicked and lazy?
Again, notice that in verse 21 and verse 23, the master’s joy was the same in each case. God does not require us to be the most successful. God is pleased with us when we are faithful, or excellent, with what we have been given.
The parable provides a good lesson in stewardship. Stewardship is an old KJV word which describes the concept of a person of lesser social standing taking care of the property of a person of a higher social standing. It is the same concept in our relationship with God. God does not need our money, our abilities, our time, etc… However, he asks that we use them for his glory and his kingdom until he returns.
God asks that we be faithful stewards. God honors us for our excellence in service. God does not demand that we advance to the top.
What has God entrusted to your care? I didn’t ask how much or what you thought you deserved. What are you doing with God’s gifts to you? Are you faithful, responsible, excellent enough to be trusted with more?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008: Generous Faith
Generous Faith
Acts 16: 6 – 15.
I. Introduction.
There is a real crisis taking place in our nation right now. It is very difficult to watch any news programming without hearing the bad news about our slumping economy. Housing values are falling. Unemployment is rising. The price of gas and milk is up. And the stock market is up sometimes but down within an hour—it is like a roller coaster ride.
Working families are struggling. Retired people are anxiously watching their retirement savings. The federal government has committed $700 Billion to bailout our credit and lending system. But none of us really know who they bailed out. Did they bail out “Wall Street?” “Main Street?” Or the street we live on?
This crisis goes beyond Wall Street and Main Street to affect Church Street. Of course, you know our church depends on your voluntary, charitable gifts to operate. And, Yes, we have experienced our own type of “economic downturn” in our church’s budget. But there is an even greater crisis on Church Street.
While not many people will stand up and admit this in public, money is the national god of the United States of America. We worship our salaries, earning potential, saving accounts, credit cards and 401 (k) retirement accounts. After all, the terrorists who attacked our country in 2001 had religious motives. They attacked our culture, but they also attacked our religion—the Pentagon (military power) and the World Trade Center (economic power).
I do not mean to suggest that our current economic woes are the result of the 2001 terrorist attacks. No. We did this to ourselves. But we feel helpless as we watch our national gods crumble before our eyes. How will Americans respond now that it is apparent that money cannot save us? How will you and I respond? How will we break away from our idolatrous culture? How will we live in a committed relationship with the One True God who can save us—the God who sent his Only Begotten Son, Jesus, to live, die and rise again?
Idolatry affects all of us. However, men and women think differently about money. Both men and women are susceptible to an idolatrous dependence on money. But we do it for different reasons. Men tend to idolize money because of the power and prestige money brings us. Men look up to and admire other men who have more money. Women tend to idolize money for the safety and security money brings.
In 2006, The Washington Times published a survey of 2,000 women and their views on money. 90 percent of the women who participated in the survey indicated that they were fearful of becoming destitute by the end of their lives. Surprisingly, this was also true of women who had annual incomes over $100,000.[1]
The story we read today from the Book of Acts is about a financially successful woman named Lydia. Perhaps Lydia struggled with her own fears of one day being destitute. We don’t really know if she did or not. But we do find in Lydia a model for wealthy people to break free from an idolatrous view of money. Lydia worked hard for the security of a high salary and large savings account. Yet, Lydia did not worship her money.
Read Acts 16: 6 – 15.
The story does not begin by introducing us to Lydia. Rather, the story begins with Paul and his traveling companions.
At the end of Acts 15, Paul suggested to Barnabas that they go on their second missionary journey together. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them. Paul was adamantly opposed to this idea. After a sharp disagreement, these two missionaries decided to go there separate ways. Barnabas took John Mark and traveled West to Cyprus. Paul took a man named Silas and traveled North to Syria.
Paul and Silas began their mission by visiting the same cities where Paul had first preached the Gospel with Barnabas. The first mission had been very difficult, but they had found some success. In the first mission, Paul and Barnabas went into the Jewish synagogues for Sabbath worship and preached about Jesus as the fulfillment of all the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. Typically, the Jews heard the Gospel with mixed responses. Some of the Jews believed in Jesus. Most of the Jews were angered and threatened to kill Paul and Barnabas. These threats caused Paul and Barnabas to turn their attention to the Gentiles. Many of the Gentiles accepted the message of salvation. Then, Paul and Barnabas helped these new believers organize themselves into Christian churches. The second missionary journey began as an encouragement to the new Christians and to check on how the new churches were doing.
In the city of Lystra, Paul and Silas met a young man named Timothy. Timothy was from a mixed backgrouns. His father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jew. Timothy was a fine Christian young man. He had a great reputation among the people of Lystra. More than likely, Timothy had become a Christian as a result of Paul’s preaching in Lystra. Either Timothy had become a believer during Paul’s first visit there. Or, Timothy had become a Christian through the church Paul helped establish. Which ever was the case, Paul was so impressed with Timothy that he invited Timothy to join them in the mission. The mission team grew from two to three.
Paul was a man with a plan. Now that he had checked on the churches, he wanted to go into a new region. Specifically, Paul wanted to go into the province of Asia. But, sometimes even godly men like Paul have to change their plans. Paul wanted to go to Asia, but the HOLY SPIRIT prevented him. We don’t know if this was a physical problem—like an illness—that kept him from his plans or some kind of mystical experience. All that matters is that Paul changed his plans when his plans did not match God’s plans. The mission trip was interrupted by God.
Paul adjusted his plans a second time. This time he planned to take his group into Bithynia. And, once again, Paul’s plans were interrupted by God’s plans.
Timothy was not the only person to join Paul and Silas on the mission. In verse 10, we witness a subtle shift in the narration of the Book of Acts. (Acts 16: 8 – 10…“So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia standing and begging him, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.” After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia.”
Two things happened in these verses. First, Paul had to change his plans AGAIN, for the third time. This time, we know it was the result of a mystical experience. Paul saw a vision from God. Second, Paul picked up another traveling companion. Since we believe the Book of Acts was written by a man named Luke, and here the narration shifts from third person to first person, we can assume Luke joined the mission team. Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke traveled into Macedonia to preach the Gospel in a new area.
II. Paul Was Surprised by God.
The call to go to Macedonia was filled with surprises. This was not Paul’s first choice of where he wanted to go. Paul’s first choice was to go to Asia. Macedonia was not Paul’s second choice. Bithynia was Paul’s second choice. Macedonia was Paul’s third choice. But Macedonia was God’s first choice for Paul.
The mission trip was interrupted by God. The mission team was surprised by God. Can you relate to what Paul was experiencing here? We know that the call to Macedonia came through a mystical experience. But we don’t know how God told Paul not to go into Asia or Bithynia. It could have been a legal reason, a physical reason, or dare I say a financial reason. Some of us might be in the midst of a financial change of plans right now. Retirement might not look like we thought it would look. Leisure time might not look like we had always dreamed. But God might be using these change of plans to put new people in our lives.
In addition to the change of plans, God had another surprise in store for Paul. In the mystical vision, Paul saw a Macedonian MAN calling and begging him to come to Macedonia. Yet, when Paul arrived in Macedonia, he encountered a WOMAN. Actually, he encountered a group of women.
III. Lydia: The Macedonian Woman.
Paul followed his typical pattern when he arrived in the region of Macedonia. First, he identified the major city of the area. In Macedonia, this major city was Philippi. Next, he identified the Jewish synagogue.
In Philippi, there does not seem to be a Jewish synagogue. In fact, not every city in the Roman Empire had a Jewish synagogue. In the First Century, it was commonly known that Jews who lived in cities without a synagogue would hold Sabbath worship services near a body of water. In Philippi, that body of water was the river.
The Jewish faith was full of various laws and regulations. Many of those laws appear in our Old Testament. Even more laws appear in the oral and written traditions of the Pharisees. One of those laws, which we don’t find in the Old Testament, is a law about how many people are required to form a synagogue. The law required ten Jewish men—not including the women—in order to form a synagogue. For some reason, Philippi did not have enough Jewish men to form a synagogue. It appears that the only Jews in Philippi were a group of women who prayed together by the river on the Sabbath.
One of those women was a wealthy woman named Lydia. We know she was wealthy for a couple of reasons. First, she is identified as a business owner. She owned and operated a clothing boutique. She made purple clothing. Second, we know she was wealthy, because of the type of clothing she sold—purple clothing. Purple was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. It was worn exclusively by the wealthy and by the royal families. Third, we know that Lydia was wealthy, because she owned her own house—notice the Bible does not refer to this house as Lydia’s husband’s house. More than likely, this was a large house. At least it was large enough that Lydia could host four overnight guests—Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke. Lydia had the means to extend hospitality to the entire mission team.
Lydia was a secure woman. She had a career; she operated a successful business; she owned a large house; but Lydia did not have everything. When she heard the Gospel for the first time, she recognized that she was missing the eternal security that comes with a relationship with Jesus as Lord of her life.
When Lydia believed the Gospel, she became a generous person. In verse 15, we read about the two things Lydia shared generously with others. First, she shared her faith with every member of her household. Second, she shared her resources with the mission team. This is a pattern that continued for the rest of Lydia’s life.
IV. The Church at Philippi.
As a Jewish women, Lydia was very limited in what she could do. She could own and operate a business. She could own her own house. BUT, Lydia could not be a founding member of a Jewish synagogue.
When Lydia became a Christian, she continued to operate her business and maintain her household. AND, she became the first founding member of the church at Philippi. This was a very special church to Paul throughout the rest of his ministry. It was so special to him, that he wrote them a letter that is included in our New Testament.
Read Philippians 4: 14 – 20.
Lydia’s generous faith was a significant characteristic of the church at Philippi. These people who became a part of the church at Philippi modeled generosity in ways none of Paul’s other churches demonstrated. They gave away their faith. They gave away their financial resources. They supported Paul financially, even when no other church supported him. AND, they continued to give to Paul’s missions.
V. Conclusion.
The church at Philippi did not worship the false god of material wealth. We know this, because they gave away their resources to something bigger and more important than money. They gave financially to the work of ministry and the spread of the Gospel. And they learned a lesson we need to learn…
When we break away from the idolatrous hold money has on our lives, we will discover what the church at Philippi discovered… “My God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.”
[1] Jenifer Harper. “Nearly Half of Women Fear Life as a Bag Lady.” The Washington Times. August 23, 2006.
Acts 16: 6 – 15.
I. Introduction.
There is a real crisis taking place in our nation right now. It is very difficult to watch any news programming without hearing the bad news about our slumping economy. Housing values are falling. Unemployment is rising. The price of gas and milk is up. And the stock market is up sometimes but down within an hour—it is like a roller coaster ride.
Working families are struggling. Retired people are anxiously watching their retirement savings. The federal government has committed $700 Billion to bailout our credit and lending system. But none of us really know who they bailed out. Did they bail out “Wall Street?” “Main Street?” Or the street we live on?
This crisis goes beyond Wall Street and Main Street to affect Church Street. Of course, you know our church depends on your voluntary, charitable gifts to operate. And, Yes, we have experienced our own type of “economic downturn” in our church’s budget. But there is an even greater crisis on Church Street.
While not many people will stand up and admit this in public, money is the national god of the United States of America. We worship our salaries, earning potential, saving accounts, credit cards and 401 (k) retirement accounts. After all, the terrorists who attacked our country in 2001 had religious motives. They attacked our culture, but they also attacked our religion—the Pentagon (military power) and the World Trade Center (economic power).
I do not mean to suggest that our current economic woes are the result of the 2001 terrorist attacks. No. We did this to ourselves. But we feel helpless as we watch our national gods crumble before our eyes. How will Americans respond now that it is apparent that money cannot save us? How will you and I respond? How will we break away from our idolatrous culture? How will we live in a committed relationship with the One True God who can save us—the God who sent his Only Begotten Son, Jesus, to live, die and rise again?
Idolatry affects all of us. However, men and women think differently about money. Both men and women are susceptible to an idolatrous dependence on money. But we do it for different reasons. Men tend to idolize money because of the power and prestige money brings us. Men look up to and admire other men who have more money. Women tend to idolize money for the safety and security money brings.
In 2006, The Washington Times published a survey of 2,000 women and their views on money. 90 percent of the women who participated in the survey indicated that they were fearful of becoming destitute by the end of their lives. Surprisingly, this was also true of women who had annual incomes over $100,000.[1]
The story we read today from the Book of Acts is about a financially successful woman named Lydia. Perhaps Lydia struggled with her own fears of one day being destitute. We don’t really know if she did or not. But we do find in Lydia a model for wealthy people to break free from an idolatrous view of money. Lydia worked hard for the security of a high salary and large savings account. Yet, Lydia did not worship her money.
Read Acts 16: 6 – 15.
The story does not begin by introducing us to Lydia. Rather, the story begins with Paul and his traveling companions.
At the end of Acts 15, Paul suggested to Barnabas that they go on their second missionary journey together. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them. Paul was adamantly opposed to this idea. After a sharp disagreement, these two missionaries decided to go there separate ways. Barnabas took John Mark and traveled West to Cyprus. Paul took a man named Silas and traveled North to Syria.
Paul and Silas began their mission by visiting the same cities where Paul had first preached the Gospel with Barnabas. The first mission had been very difficult, but they had found some success. In the first mission, Paul and Barnabas went into the Jewish synagogues for Sabbath worship and preached about Jesus as the fulfillment of all the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. Typically, the Jews heard the Gospel with mixed responses. Some of the Jews believed in Jesus. Most of the Jews were angered and threatened to kill Paul and Barnabas. These threats caused Paul and Barnabas to turn their attention to the Gentiles. Many of the Gentiles accepted the message of salvation. Then, Paul and Barnabas helped these new believers organize themselves into Christian churches. The second missionary journey began as an encouragement to the new Christians and to check on how the new churches were doing.
In the city of Lystra, Paul and Silas met a young man named Timothy. Timothy was from a mixed backgrouns. His father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jew. Timothy was a fine Christian young man. He had a great reputation among the people of Lystra. More than likely, Timothy had become a Christian as a result of Paul’s preaching in Lystra. Either Timothy had become a believer during Paul’s first visit there. Or, Timothy had become a Christian through the church Paul helped establish. Which ever was the case, Paul was so impressed with Timothy that he invited Timothy to join them in the mission. The mission team grew from two to three.
Paul was a man with a plan. Now that he had checked on the churches, he wanted to go into a new region. Specifically, Paul wanted to go into the province of Asia. But, sometimes even godly men like Paul have to change their plans. Paul wanted to go to Asia, but the HOLY SPIRIT prevented him. We don’t know if this was a physical problem—like an illness—that kept him from his plans or some kind of mystical experience. All that matters is that Paul changed his plans when his plans did not match God’s plans. The mission trip was interrupted by God.
Paul adjusted his plans a second time. This time he planned to take his group into Bithynia. And, once again, Paul’s plans were interrupted by God’s plans.
Timothy was not the only person to join Paul and Silas on the mission. In verse 10, we witness a subtle shift in the narration of the Book of Acts. (Acts 16: 8 – 10…“So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia standing and begging him, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.” After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia.”
Two things happened in these verses. First, Paul had to change his plans AGAIN, for the third time. This time, we know it was the result of a mystical experience. Paul saw a vision from God. Second, Paul picked up another traveling companion. Since we believe the Book of Acts was written by a man named Luke, and here the narration shifts from third person to first person, we can assume Luke joined the mission team. Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke traveled into Macedonia to preach the Gospel in a new area.
II. Paul Was Surprised by God.
The call to go to Macedonia was filled with surprises. This was not Paul’s first choice of where he wanted to go. Paul’s first choice was to go to Asia. Macedonia was not Paul’s second choice. Bithynia was Paul’s second choice. Macedonia was Paul’s third choice. But Macedonia was God’s first choice for Paul.
The mission trip was interrupted by God. The mission team was surprised by God. Can you relate to what Paul was experiencing here? We know that the call to Macedonia came through a mystical experience. But we don’t know how God told Paul not to go into Asia or Bithynia. It could have been a legal reason, a physical reason, or dare I say a financial reason. Some of us might be in the midst of a financial change of plans right now. Retirement might not look like we thought it would look. Leisure time might not look like we had always dreamed. But God might be using these change of plans to put new people in our lives.
In addition to the change of plans, God had another surprise in store for Paul. In the mystical vision, Paul saw a Macedonian MAN calling and begging him to come to Macedonia. Yet, when Paul arrived in Macedonia, he encountered a WOMAN. Actually, he encountered a group of women.
III. Lydia: The Macedonian Woman.
Paul followed his typical pattern when he arrived in the region of Macedonia. First, he identified the major city of the area. In Macedonia, this major city was Philippi. Next, he identified the Jewish synagogue.
In Philippi, there does not seem to be a Jewish synagogue. In fact, not every city in the Roman Empire had a Jewish synagogue. In the First Century, it was commonly known that Jews who lived in cities without a synagogue would hold Sabbath worship services near a body of water. In Philippi, that body of water was the river.
The Jewish faith was full of various laws and regulations. Many of those laws appear in our Old Testament. Even more laws appear in the oral and written traditions of the Pharisees. One of those laws, which we don’t find in the Old Testament, is a law about how many people are required to form a synagogue. The law required ten Jewish men—not including the women—in order to form a synagogue. For some reason, Philippi did not have enough Jewish men to form a synagogue. It appears that the only Jews in Philippi were a group of women who prayed together by the river on the Sabbath.
One of those women was a wealthy woman named Lydia. We know she was wealthy for a couple of reasons. First, she is identified as a business owner. She owned and operated a clothing boutique. She made purple clothing. Second, we know she was wealthy, because of the type of clothing she sold—purple clothing. Purple was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. It was worn exclusively by the wealthy and by the royal families. Third, we know that Lydia was wealthy, because she owned her own house—notice the Bible does not refer to this house as Lydia’s husband’s house. More than likely, this was a large house. At least it was large enough that Lydia could host four overnight guests—Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke. Lydia had the means to extend hospitality to the entire mission team.
Lydia was a secure woman. She had a career; she operated a successful business; she owned a large house; but Lydia did not have everything. When she heard the Gospel for the first time, she recognized that she was missing the eternal security that comes with a relationship with Jesus as Lord of her life.
When Lydia believed the Gospel, she became a generous person. In verse 15, we read about the two things Lydia shared generously with others. First, she shared her faith with every member of her household. Second, she shared her resources with the mission team. This is a pattern that continued for the rest of Lydia’s life.
IV. The Church at Philippi.
As a Jewish women, Lydia was very limited in what she could do. She could own and operate a business. She could own her own house. BUT, Lydia could not be a founding member of a Jewish synagogue.
When Lydia became a Christian, she continued to operate her business and maintain her household. AND, she became the first founding member of the church at Philippi. This was a very special church to Paul throughout the rest of his ministry. It was so special to him, that he wrote them a letter that is included in our New Testament.
Read Philippians 4: 14 – 20.
Lydia’s generous faith was a significant characteristic of the church at Philippi. These people who became a part of the church at Philippi modeled generosity in ways none of Paul’s other churches demonstrated. They gave away their faith. They gave away their financial resources. They supported Paul financially, even when no other church supported him. AND, they continued to give to Paul’s missions.
V. Conclusion.
The church at Philippi did not worship the false god of material wealth. We know this, because they gave away their resources to something bigger and more important than money. They gave financially to the work of ministry and the spread of the Gospel. And they learned a lesson we need to learn…
When we break away from the idolatrous hold money has on our lives, we will discover what the church at Philippi discovered… “My God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.”
[1] Jenifer Harper. “Nearly Half of Women Fear Life as a Bag Lady.” The Washington Times. August 23, 2006.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008: When Good Christians Can't Get Along
When Good Christians Can’t Get Along
Acts 15: 36 – 41.
I. Introduction.
It’s an old story, but it is one I like to tell…About the man who was stranded on a desert island. He lived there for months, alone. He learned how to eek out an existence with limited resources. Eventually, he was rescued by a group of sailors.
The sailors first noticed three hand-built, thatch huts lining the edge of the beach. They asked the man how he had built the huts. He described his struggle to find wood and cut it into lengths without any tools.
They asked what the huts were. He answered: “The first one is my house. The second one is my church. The third one is where I used to go to church.”
Some of us have found ourselves in that situation before. Church is a special place for all Christians. Church is supposed to be a place where we are surrounded by Christian men and women who share our love for Jesus and our passion to do God’s work. In an ideal world, that would be enough—to love Jesus and to feel a sense of calling to do God’s work. However, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a very messy world. Sometimes, even good Christians can’t get along.
God did not create this world to be a messy place. But the world became messy when sin became our way of life. Beginning with the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, we have felt the daily consequences of sinfulness in our lives. Sin has led to all of our human frailties—disease, natural disasters and even broken relationships.
The church is not immune to the consequences of sin. The church will always face disease, natural disasters and broken relationships as long as the church consists of imperfect, sinful human beings.
Whenever there is a conflict within the church, someone usually comes forward with a call for the church to become more like the church of the New Testament. The common misconception is that if our church were more like the New Testament church, then we would not experience conflict. Which New Testament church do you think we ought to be like?
The church at Corinth? This is the church which had begun to splinter into rival factions based on petty arguments like who was the best Christian preacher. They divided over how “speaking in tongues” was to be used in public worship. There was even a church leader at Corinth who was “living in sin” with his father’s wife.
Maybe the church at Galatia? This is the only church Paul did not write, “I thank my God on every remembrance of you.” Paul was not happy with them, because they had abandoned the Gospel. They stopped thinking the Gospel was sufficient for salvation. They thought it was necessary for a person to believe in Jesus and to keep the Old Testament Law.
Or perhaps we should be like the church found in the book of Acts? That is what we might gather from the sermons I have preached lately. But, not everything in the early church was rosy. They, too, had their share of conflicts. One such conflict is the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15.
Read Acts 15: 36 – 41.
This story marks the beginning of what we call “Paul’s second missionary journey.” His first missionary journey began in Acts 13 and ended in chapter 14.
On one hand, the first missionary journey had been successful. Paul and Barnabas preached the Gospel to the Jews first in synagogue worship services and then to the Gentiles in other gatherings. The Jews did not respond well to the Gospel, but the Gentiles did! These new converts were gathered together into local churches, and Paul and Barnabas helped these churches find their first pastors.
On the other hand, the first missionary journey had been very difficult work. Paul and Barnabas were driven out of most of the towns they preached in. The Jews who did not like the message of the Gospel joined forces with some of the pagan Gentiles to threaten Paul and Barnabas’ lives. In one of the towns, these threats actually materialized into a beating. Paul was stoned by the Jews and dragged outside of the city limits where he was left to die. However, Paul did not die. He got back on his feet and did the unthinkable—he went back into the town to continue preaching the Gospel.
We don’t know exactly how long it has been since Paul and Barnabas returned from their first mission. We can assume it was long enough for Paul’s wounds to have healed and long enough for Paul and Barnabas to have forgotten how painful their persecution had been. (Or perhaps it was like the pains of childbirth, where a mother’s joy in the birth of her child overshadows the pains she went through.) All we know about the timeframe is what the Bible tells us. It was “some time later (Acts 15: 36).”
One of the things we know about Paul’s ministry is that he took a holistic approach to evangelism. Paul was not like a modern-day evangelist who rides into town to lead people to Jesus, never to see them again. No. Paul was intimately involved both in the events which led to conversion as well as the ongoing work of growing new believers into mature Christian men and women. This is why Paul wanted to go back out a second time. He wanted to check on the health of the new churches and to learn about the progress and growth of the new Christians.
Now that the wounds have healed and the pain of persecution was a distant memory, Paul said to Barnabas: “Let’s go back to the places where we once preached and check on the new Christians.”
That’s what Paul said. But that is not what Barnabas heard. Barnabas thought Paul said, “Let’s get the gang back together for a reunion.” So, Barnabas tried to recreate the original mission team. Barnabas was willing to go on a second mission, but he wanted John Mark to go with them again.
I wish we knew more about what took place in this conversation. The biblical text leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The Bible simply says that Paul and Barnabas had a “sharp disagreement (Acts 15: 39)” that led them to part ways. Something happened that changed the relationship between Paul and Barnabas. These two missionaries who had recently celebrated their successful partnership were no longer able to work together.
II. Who Was Right?
Paul and Barnabas disagreed over John Mark. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark along on the second missionary journey. Paul did not.
It makes sense that Barnabas wanted John Mark to go with them for several reasons. First, John Mark went with them on the first journey. Second, John Mark was Barnabas’ cousin. Third, Barnabas had a reputation as an “encourager.” In fact, that is what Barnabas’ names means: “Son of Encouragement.”
However, it also makes sense that Paul did NOT want John Mark to accompany them on the mission. Acts 15: 38 presents Paul’s side of the disagreement: “Paul did not think it wise to take him (John Mark), because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work.”
This is another occasion where the Bible leaves a lot of unanswered questions. We simply do not know why John Mark chose to leave the first mission. Acts 13: 13 tells us simply “John left them to return to Jerusalem.”
I find it a little unusual that John returned to Jerusalem. Jerusalem was John Mark’s hometown, but the Jerusalem church was NOT the church that sent John Mark out as a missionary. The Antioch church sent him out. Why would John Mark return to Jerusalem instead of Antioch? It would make more sense to me if John Mark had returned to Antioch and report the success of the mission to the church which sent out the missionaries. This tells me John Mark left for a specific reason.
Some people think John Mark abandoned the mission for personal reasons. Perhaps he was homesick and wanted to be close to his mother. Perhaps he had a girlfriend whom he missed. But these reasons don’t explain why Paul was so adamantly opposed to John Mark’s accompanying them on the second mission.
Other people think John Mark left over a personal conflict with Paul. In fact, the verse that describes John Mark’s decision to leave the mission is the first verse in the book of Acts where Paul is listed before Barnabas. In other words, the mission was no longer Barnabas and Paul. It was now Paul and Barnabas. John Mark’s cousin was no longer the group leader.
Another possibility is that John Mark left for theological reasons. Jerusalem was his hometown, so he might have felt more comfortable with the Jewish-Christian expression of faith prevalent in Jerusalem. If this is true, then John Mark was probably uncomfortable with Paul’s preaching Grace and not requiring the new converts to become practicing Jews. (This makes sense to me, because it explains why John Mark left to return to Jerusalem instead of Antioch.)
This is where conflict gets messy. It makes sense that Paul would not want John Mark on the team. But it also makes sense that Barnabas did want John Mark. So, which Christian missionary was right? Paul, the greatest missionary and church planter in the early church? Barnabas, the “Son of Encouragement?” They were BOTH right!
Paul was right to insist on a unified team. Barnabas was right to stand by John Mark. They were just motivated by different reasons. In fact, I think they were motivated by their different spiritual gifts. Paul was gifted and called to be an Apostle and therefore focused his attention on the mission. Barnabas was gifted and called to be an encourager and therefore focused his attention on the man. Paul was called to redeem the world. Barnabas was called to redeem John Mark.
III. Which Side Did God Choose?
While I am hesitant to say God is the One who caused the conflict, I do see the results of the conflict as bringing glory to God. Think of what might have happened if either Paul or Barnabas had “given in” to the other’s wishes. If Paul had “given in,” then John Mark would have gone on the mission. Paul would not have been as effective. If Barnabas had “given in” to Paul’s desire, then Paul and Barnabas would have gone out on mission without John Mark. More than likely, Barnabas would not have been as effective.
As it turns out, Paul and Barnabas settled on a solution that was a “win” for both parties. Barnabas took John Mark with him and set sail for Cyprus. Paul took Silas with him and traveled to Syria.
The very best thing Paul and Barnabas could do was to part ways and to use the gifts God had given them. They could go separate ways and accomplish separate missions by focusing on what God called them to do. In fact, they could accomplish more apart from each other than they could have accomplished together. Before the conflict, there was only one missionary team. After the conflict, there were two missionary teams.
We would be hard pressed to make a case that God chose Paul’s side over Barnabas’. God was with each mission team.
The way Paul and Barnabas parted ways is a wonderful model for us to follow when we encounter other Christians we can’t get along with. In my imagination, Paul and Barnabas left on their separate missions by saying something like this: “We are going North. You and your team go West. May God bless you in your work.”
This is not the way most Christians deal with disagreements today. I recently saw a cartoon that describes what we try to do. In the cartoon, there was a man standing beside a large table. There were five people seated at the table. The caption read: “Let’s summarize. Five people are in favor. God and I are opposed.”
Paul and Barnabas never took this attitude in their disagreement. Paul did not say, “You and John Mark go West. God and I are going North.”
Paul knew that God is able to use even the most difficult and painful situations to accomplish his good purposes.
IV. How Did the Story End?
As far as we know, Paul and Barnabas left on separate missions without resolving their differences. If this were the end of the story, it would be a tragedy. But this is not the end. Look at what Paul says in his later writings:
1 Corinthians 9: 6… “Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?”
The church at Corinth was founded on Paul’s second missionary journey, AFTER Paul and Barnabas had their disagreement. Paul’s words indicate that eventually he and Barnabas worked together in Corinth.
2 Timothy 4: 11… “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.”
Eventually, Paul recognized Mark as helpful.
Romans 12: 18… “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
Paul acknowledges that peaceful cooperation is not always possible.
Romans 8: 28… “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
V. Conclusion
Acts 15: 36 – 41.
I. Introduction.
It’s an old story, but it is one I like to tell…About the man who was stranded on a desert island. He lived there for months, alone. He learned how to eek out an existence with limited resources. Eventually, he was rescued by a group of sailors.
The sailors first noticed three hand-built, thatch huts lining the edge of the beach. They asked the man how he had built the huts. He described his struggle to find wood and cut it into lengths without any tools.
They asked what the huts were. He answered: “The first one is my house. The second one is my church. The third one is where I used to go to church.”
Some of us have found ourselves in that situation before. Church is a special place for all Christians. Church is supposed to be a place where we are surrounded by Christian men and women who share our love for Jesus and our passion to do God’s work. In an ideal world, that would be enough—to love Jesus and to feel a sense of calling to do God’s work. However, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a very messy world. Sometimes, even good Christians can’t get along.
God did not create this world to be a messy place. But the world became messy when sin became our way of life. Beginning with the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, we have felt the daily consequences of sinfulness in our lives. Sin has led to all of our human frailties—disease, natural disasters and even broken relationships.
The church is not immune to the consequences of sin. The church will always face disease, natural disasters and broken relationships as long as the church consists of imperfect, sinful human beings.
Whenever there is a conflict within the church, someone usually comes forward with a call for the church to become more like the church of the New Testament. The common misconception is that if our church were more like the New Testament church, then we would not experience conflict. Which New Testament church do you think we ought to be like?
The church at Corinth? This is the church which had begun to splinter into rival factions based on petty arguments like who was the best Christian preacher. They divided over how “speaking in tongues” was to be used in public worship. There was even a church leader at Corinth who was “living in sin” with his father’s wife.
Maybe the church at Galatia? This is the only church Paul did not write, “I thank my God on every remembrance of you.” Paul was not happy with them, because they had abandoned the Gospel. They stopped thinking the Gospel was sufficient for salvation. They thought it was necessary for a person to believe in Jesus and to keep the Old Testament Law.
Or perhaps we should be like the church found in the book of Acts? That is what we might gather from the sermons I have preached lately. But, not everything in the early church was rosy. They, too, had their share of conflicts. One such conflict is the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15.
Read Acts 15: 36 – 41.
This story marks the beginning of what we call “Paul’s second missionary journey.” His first missionary journey began in Acts 13 and ended in chapter 14.
On one hand, the first missionary journey had been successful. Paul and Barnabas preached the Gospel to the Jews first in synagogue worship services and then to the Gentiles in other gatherings. The Jews did not respond well to the Gospel, but the Gentiles did! These new converts were gathered together into local churches, and Paul and Barnabas helped these churches find their first pastors.
On the other hand, the first missionary journey had been very difficult work. Paul and Barnabas were driven out of most of the towns they preached in. The Jews who did not like the message of the Gospel joined forces with some of the pagan Gentiles to threaten Paul and Barnabas’ lives. In one of the towns, these threats actually materialized into a beating. Paul was stoned by the Jews and dragged outside of the city limits where he was left to die. However, Paul did not die. He got back on his feet and did the unthinkable—he went back into the town to continue preaching the Gospel.
We don’t know exactly how long it has been since Paul and Barnabas returned from their first mission. We can assume it was long enough for Paul’s wounds to have healed and long enough for Paul and Barnabas to have forgotten how painful their persecution had been. (Or perhaps it was like the pains of childbirth, where a mother’s joy in the birth of her child overshadows the pains she went through.) All we know about the timeframe is what the Bible tells us. It was “some time later (Acts 15: 36).”
One of the things we know about Paul’s ministry is that he took a holistic approach to evangelism. Paul was not like a modern-day evangelist who rides into town to lead people to Jesus, never to see them again. No. Paul was intimately involved both in the events which led to conversion as well as the ongoing work of growing new believers into mature Christian men and women. This is why Paul wanted to go back out a second time. He wanted to check on the health of the new churches and to learn about the progress and growth of the new Christians.
Now that the wounds have healed and the pain of persecution was a distant memory, Paul said to Barnabas: “Let’s go back to the places where we once preached and check on the new Christians.”
That’s what Paul said. But that is not what Barnabas heard. Barnabas thought Paul said, “Let’s get the gang back together for a reunion.” So, Barnabas tried to recreate the original mission team. Barnabas was willing to go on a second mission, but he wanted John Mark to go with them again.
I wish we knew more about what took place in this conversation. The biblical text leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The Bible simply says that Paul and Barnabas had a “sharp disagreement (Acts 15: 39)” that led them to part ways. Something happened that changed the relationship between Paul and Barnabas. These two missionaries who had recently celebrated their successful partnership were no longer able to work together.
II. Who Was Right?
Paul and Barnabas disagreed over John Mark. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark along on the second missionary journey. Paul did not.
It makes sense that Barnabas wanted John Mark to go with them for several reasons. First, John Mark went with them on the first journey. Second, John Mark was Barnabas’ cousin. Third, Barnabas had a reputation as an “encourager.” In fact, that is what Barnabas’ names means: “Son of Encouragement.”
However, it also makes sense that Paul did NOT want John Mark to accompany them on the mission. Acts 15: 38 presents Paul’s side of the disagreement: “Paul did not think it wise to take him (John Mark), because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work.”
This is another occasion where the Bible leaves a lot of unanswered questions. We simply do not know why John Mark chose to leave the first mission. Acts 13: 13 tells us simply “John left them to return to Jerusalem.”
I find it a little unusual that John returned to Jerusalem. Jerusalem was John Mark’s hometown, but the Jerusalem church was NOT the church that sent John Mark out as a missionary. The Antioch church sent him out. Why would John Mark return to Jerusalem instead of Antioch? It would make more sense to me if John Mark had returned to Antioch and report the success of the mission to the church which sent out the missionaries. This tells me John Mark left for a specific reason.
Some people think John Mark abandoned the mission for personal reasons. Perhaps he was homesick and wanted to be close to his mother. Perhaps he had a girlfriend whom he missed. But these reasons don’t explain why Paul was so adamantly opposed to John Mark’s accompanying them on the second mission.
Other people think John Mark left over a personal conflict with Paul. In fact, the verse that describes John Mark’s decision to leave the mission is the first verse in the book of Acts where Paul is listed before Barnabas. In other words, the mission was no longer Barnabas and Paul. It was now Paul and Barnabas. John Mark’s cousin was no longer the group leader.
Another possibility is that John Mark left for theological reasons. Jerusalem was his hometown, so he might have felt more comfortable with the Jewish-Christian expression of faith prevalent in Jerusalem. If this is true, then John Mark was probably uncomfortable with Paul’s preaching Grace and not requiring the new converts to become practicing Jews. (This makes sense to me, because it explains why John Mark left to return to Jerusalem instead of Antioch.)
This is where conflict gets messy. It makes sense that Paul would not want John Mark on the team. But it also makes sense that Barnabas did want John Mark. So, which Christian missionary was right? Paul, the greatest missionary and church planter in the early church? Barnabas, the “Son of Encouragement?” They were BOTH right!
Paul was right to insist on a unified team. Barnabas was right to stand by John Mark. They were just motivated by different reasons. In fact, I think they were motivated by their different spiritual gifts. Paul was gifted and called to be an Apostle and therefore focused his attention on the mission. Barnabas was gifted and called to be an encourager and therefore focused his attention on the man. Paul was called to redeem the world. Barnabas was called to redeem John Mark.
III. Which Side Did God Choose?
While I am hesitant to say God is the One who caused the conflict, I do see the results of the conflict as bringing glory to God. Think of what might have happened if either Paul or Barnabas had “given in” to the other’s wishes. If Paul had “given in,” then John Mark would have gone on the mission. Paul would not have been as effective. If Barnabas had “given in” to Paul’s desire, then Paul and Barnabas would have gone out on mission without John Mark. More than likely, Barnabas would not have been as effective.
As it turns out, Paul and Barnabas settled on a solution that was a “win” for both parties. Barnabas took John Mark with him and set sail for Cyprus. Paul took Silas with him and traveled to Syria.
The very best thing Paul and Barnabas could do was to part ways and to use the gifts God had given them. They could go separate ways and accomplish separate missions by focusing on what God called them to do. In fact, they could accomplish more apart from each other than they could have accomplished together. Before the conflict, there was only one missionary team. After the conflict, there were two missionary teams.
We would be hard pressed to make a case that God chose Paul’s side over Barnabas’. God was with each mission team.
The way Paul and Barnabas parted ways is a wonderful model for us to follow when we encounter other Christians we can’t get along with. In my imagination, Paul and Barnabas left on their separate missions by saying something like this: “We are going North. You and your team go West. May God bless you in your work.”
This is not the way most Christians deal with disagreements today. I recently saw a cartoon that describes what we try to do. In the cartoon, there was a man standing beside a large table. There were five people seated at the table. The caption read: “Let’s summarize. Five people are in favor. God and I are opposed.”
Paul and Barnabas never took this attitude in their disagreement. Paul did not say, “You and John Mark go West. God and I are going North.”
Paul knew that God is able to use even the most difficult and painful situations to accomplish his good purposes.
IV. How Did the Story End?
As far as we know, Paul and Barnabas left on separate missions without resolving their differences. If this were the end of the story, it would be a tragedy. But this is not the end. Look at what Paul says in his later writings:
1 Corinthians 9: 6… “Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?”
The church at Corinth was founded on Paul’s second missionary journey, AFTER Paul and Barnabas had their disagreement. Paul’s words indicate that eventually he and Barnabas worked together in Corinth.
2 Timothy 4: 11… “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.”
Eventually, Paul recognized Mark as helpful.
Romans 12: 18… “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
Paul acknowledges that peaceful cooperation is not always possible.
Romans 8: 28… “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
V. Conclusion
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008: Christian Life
Christian Life
Acts 15: 1 – 21.
I. Introduction.
One of the things that separates the Christian faith from all other world religions is the difference between the two words “Do” and “Done.”
Most religions adopt a kind of worldview in which it is very important what you do for God. In other words, a person should live his or her life in such a way as to try to be good more often than bad. Be kind to people and animals. Don’t kill other people—even when you feel like it sometimes. Be faithful to your wife or husband. Spend a few moments in prayer every day. Hopefully, by the end of your life, all these good things will outweigh all the bad things you have done.
The Christian faith does not share this view of salvation. No. For Christians, salvation is not a matter of what we can do for God. Salvation is what God has done for us. Another way we can say this is to put it in terms of a search for God. After all, salvation is based on a proper relationship with God.
You can spend your entire life trying to do the right thing or to live a life that God will notice. Then, at the end of your life, you can still feel like you have not found God. That is because all of our efforts to search for God culminate in failure. You cannot work your way to God, no matter how good your life might be.
The Good News is that we don’t have to search for God. God is searching for us. John 3: 16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”
God’s search for us culminated in the Incarnation. God came down to earth in the form of a human being—Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life to set an example of how we should live. Jesus willingly gave his life to die on the cross. His crucifixion demonstrates the depth of God’s love and search for us. The death of Jesus is the sacrifice, the ransom, the payment for all our sins.
Salvation is not accomplished through the things we “do” for God. Salvation is accomplished by what God has “done” for us in the death of Jesus.
We don’t have to search for God. We simply have to open ourselves to God’s search for us.
This is the message of Good News and salvation Paul and Barnabas have been preaching in the book of Acts. They started out preaching this message to Jewish men and women. They told the Jews—in no uncertain terms—that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament promises God made to Israel. God promised to send a Messiah, from the lineage of David, to be the eternal ruler over God’s people. Jesus fulfilled this promise in the least likely of ways: he gave his life as a sacrifice, a ransom, a payment for all our sins.
Some of the Jews accepted this message, but most did not. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas turned their attention to the Gentiles—men and women who were not Jews by race or religion. The Gentiles readily accepted the message of the Cross and salvation. There was a religious wildfire spreading across the Greco-Roman world. Of course, it is not easy to keep a wildfire from being noticed. Eventually, the Jerusalem Church noticed the way the Gentiles were coming to faith. So, Paul and Barnabas had to give an account to the Jerusalem Church about what was going on among the new churches.
Read Acts 15: 1 – 21.
This story falls at the center of the Book of Acts. Literally, it is the middle of the book. Symbolically, this is a turning point for the spread of the Good News about Jesus. The chapters leading up to this story focus primarily on the Jewish men and women who accepted Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. The chapters following this story do not really mention what is going on in Jerusalem.
The Jewish Christians remained in Jerusalem. They had a kind of religious practice that we rarely see today. They followed Jesus as Lord, AND they continued to take seriously the teachings of the Old Testament.
Paul and Barnabas left Jerusalem and led a missionary movement outside of Jerusalem that literally turned the world upside down. This missionary movement took a significant turn away from what was taking place in Jerusalem. The Gentile people outside of Jerusalem did not know the Jewish Scriptures, and therefore did not know how Jesus had fulfilled God’s promises to Israel or how to live like a Jew.
It may surprise you to know that the Jewish religion of the First Century was also a missionary religion. The Jews understood themselves to be God’s chosen people. God had chosen them to tell the world about God and his offer of salvation. However, their missionary endeavors were based on adherence to the Jewish Law found in the Old Testament Scriptures.
The Jews had done a fair job of teaching and preaching their Scriptures to non-Jewish people. Jewish synagogues could be found in most major cities of the Roman Empire. As a result, many Gentiles had become proselytes to Judaism over the years. These proselytes were required to do two things. First, all men had to be circumcised. This was the outward mark that these men had become a member of the Jewish faith. Second, men and women had to submit themselves to the moral and ritual codes of the Law. They had to adopt the dietary rules as well as strictly maintain the ethical requirements of the Old Testament.
Since the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem were already familiar with doing missionary work and requiring new believers to adhere to the Jewish practices, they assumed new Christians would also have to go through similar steps. However, Paul and Barnabas had not preached about these kinds of practices. They simply preached about Jesus. And so began the conflict.
In simple terms, there were two opposite views of how Gentiles could become Christians. On one hand, Paul and Barnabas preached about Jesus. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Church preached Jesus and the practice of Jewish faith. In their view, a person had to clean up his or her life first by becoming a Jew. THEN, the person could accept Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish expectation.
Fortunately for Paul, he never had to defend himself. (That is the best way to win a debate or argument. Let someone else defend your side.) Peter spoke up and reminded the Jerusalem Church about the time God told him to preach to a Gentile soldier named Cornelius. The church should remember the story Pater is talking about, because they made him explain his actions. At the time, he only had one explanation: God told him to do it. After Peter shared the Good News with Cornelius, Cornelius and his entire family placed their lives in Jesus’ hands. They believed the message of salvation. Then, God confirmed their decision by giving them the Holy Spirit. It was obviously genuine faith, because God only gives his Spirit to those who place their faith in Jesus.
II. God Purified Their Hearts by Faith.
Peter’s testimony about Cornelius’ faith is significant, because he blames all this on God. And Peter was right. God was obviously involved in the spread of the Gospel. God told Peter to preach to non-Jewish people, and God confirmed this before Peter’s eyes by giving the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his family.
Notice what Peter said in verse 9: “He (God) made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.”
It was a big step for Peter to move outside the Jewish tradition to extend the message of salvation to Cornelius. The first lesson he learned was that God loves Jews and non-Jews alike. In God’s eyes, there was no distinction between Jews and non-Jews.
The second lesson Peter learned was that salvation is not about what we can “do” for God. Salvation is what God has “done” for us.
If salvation really was about what we can “do” for God, then Cornelius would have been required to do some purification first. Since Cornelius was not a Jew, he was considered unclean by Jewish standards. Since Cornelius was a Roman soldier, he was considered an enemy of God’s people.
God did not require Cornelius to “do” anything to be saved. God did all the purification Cornelius needed.
This is important for us today. We need to remember that God has called us to share the message of salvation with people who do not live like we live. We should never expect people to “clean up their lives” before coming to church. That is what God does. God accepts anyone who has faith, exactly like we are right now. Then, God begins the work of purifying our hearts.
III. God Showed that He Accepted Them by Giving the Holy Spirit.
Now, look at what Peter said in verse 8: “God, who knows the heart showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.”
I think Peter got ahead of himself, because he started his argument with his conclusion. The Holy Spirit was confirmation that God accepted the faith of Cornelius and his family. BUT, the Holy Spirit did not come to Cornelius until after he placed his faith in Jesus.
This is the way God does the work of purification in our lives. On one hand, God does not expect us to “clean up our lives” before we have faith in Jesus. On the other hand, once God gives his Holy Spirit to us something changes in our lives. God accepts us the way we are. But God does not leave us the way we were. He changes us. He purifies us.
IV. We Should Not Make It Difficult for Gentiles who Are Turning to God.
The second person to speak in the church council was James the brother of Jesus. James was more than likely a Jewish Christian. He was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. But, James became a believer after the Resurrection. History tells us that James never left Jerusalem. He was an important figure in the Jerusalem church, but he was never a missionary. He continued to follow the practices of the Jewish faith while believing that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
James’ words in verses 19 – 20 are interesting: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”
On first glance, it seems that James is suggesting additional requirements for the new Gentile Christians. His suggestions come directly from Leviticus 17 – 18. These were God’s “minimal standards” for people living within the covenant with God. Since these suggestions come from the Old Testament, they sound like additional requirements.
However, I like to think of them differently. I interpret James’ suggestion to mean something like this: “Don’t live like the rest of the world.” The rest of the world constantly faced questions about idolatry and sexual morality. Christians should live by a standard different from the rest of the world.
V. Conclusion.
When we take Peter’s story and James’ suggestion together we get something like what Martin Luther taught about righteousness. A biblical understanding of righteousness does not mean that we ought to work our way to salvation by the way we live our lives. No. Biblical righteousness is basically being in a right relationship with God. A right relationship with God is not something we can accomplish for ourselves. It is something God offers us by Grace, through faith in Jesus.
One of Luther’s important writings was entitled “Two Kinds of Righteousness.” He described the first kind of righteousness as “Alien Righteousness.” It does not come from inside of us. It is alien, or foreign to us. In Peter’s words, God purifies our hearts through faith.
The second kind of righteousness is “Proper Righteousness.” This is the kind of clean living that we do AFTER we come to faith in Jesus. In other words, we respond to God’s Grace by living a new kind of life—a life that is different from the world around us. This life is only possible when the Holy Spirit is living within us.
This is the difference between “do” and “done.” God does not ask us to “do” anything to clean up our lives and achieve our own salvation. God purifies our hearts through faith in what he has already “done” for us in the death of Jesus. But, watch out. Once you give your life to Jesus in faith…The Holy Spirit will change your life to live by a different standard.
Acts 15: 1 – 21.
I. Introduction.
One of the things that separates the Christian faith from all other world religions is the difference between the two words “Do” and “Done.”
Most religions adopt a kind of worldview in which it is very important what you do for God. In other words, a person should live his or her life in such a way as to try to be good more often than bad. Be kind to people and animals. Don’t kill other people—even when you feel like it sometimes. Be faithful to your wife or husband. Spend a few moments in prayer every day. Hopefully, by the end of your life, all these good things will outweigh all the bad things you have done.
The Christian faith does not share this view of salvation. No. For Christians, salvation is not a matter of what we can do for God. Salvation is what God has done for us. Another way we can say this is to put it in terms of a search for God. After all, salvation is based on a proper relationship with God.
You can spend your entire life trying to do the right thing or to live a life that God will notice. Then, at the end of your life, you can still feel like you have not found God. That is because all of our efforts to search for God culminate in failure. You cannot work your way to God, no matter how good your life might be.
The Good News is that we don’t have to search for God. God is searching for us. John 3: 16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”
God’s search for us culminated in the Incarnation. God came down to earth in the form of a human being—Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life to set an example of how we should live. Jesus willingly gave his life to die on the cross. His crucifixion demonstrates the depth of God’s love and search for us. The death of Jesus is the sacrifice, the ransom, the payment for all our sins.
Salvation is not accomplished through the things we “do” for God. Salvation is accomplished by what God has “done” for us in the death of Jesus.
We don’t have to search for God. We simply have to open ourselves to God’s search for us.
This is the message of Good News and salvation Paul and Barnabas have been preaching in the book of Acts. They started out preaching this message to Jewish men and women. They told the Jews—in no uncertain terms—that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament promises God made to Israel. God promised to send a Messiah, from the lineage of David, to be the eternal ruler over God’s people. Jesus fulfilled this promise in the least likely of ways: he gave his life as a sacrifice, a ransom, a payment for all our sins.
Some of the Jews accepted this message, but most did not. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas turned their attention to the Gentiles—men and women who were not Jews by race or religion. The Gentiles readily accepted the message of the Cross and salvation. There was a religious wildfire spreading across the Greco-Roman world. Of course, it is not easy to keep a wildfire from being noticed. Eventually, the Jerusalem Church noticed the way the Gentiles were coming to faith. So, Paul and Barnabas had to give an account to the Jerusalem Church about what was going on among the new churches.
Read Acts 15: 1 – 21.
This story falls at the center of the Book of Acts. Literally, it is the middle of the book. Symbolically, this is a turning point for the spread of the Good News about Jesus. The chapters leading up to this story focus primarily on the Jewish men and women who accepted Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. The chapters following this story do not really mention what is going on in Jerusalem.
The Jewish Christians remained in Jerusalem. They had a kind of religious practice that we rarely see today. They followed Jesus as Lord, AND they continued to take seriously the teachings of the Old Testament.
Paul and Barnabas left Jerusalem and led a missionary movement outside of Jerusalem that literally turned the world upside down. This missionary movement took a significant turn away from what was taking place in Jerusalem. The Gentile people outside of Jerusalem did not know the Jewish Scriptures, and therefore did not know how Jesus had fulfilled God’s promises to Israel or how to live like a Jew.
It may surprise you to know that the Jewish religion of the First Century was also a missionary religion. The Jews understood themselves to be God’s chosen people. God had chosen them to tell the world about God and his offer of salvation. However, their missionary endeavors were based on adherence to the Jewish Law found in the Old Testament Scriptures.
The Jews had done a fair job of teaching and preaching their Scriptures to non-Jewish people. Jewish synagogues could be found in most major cities of the Roman Empire. As a result, many Gentiles had become proselytes to Judaism over the years. These proselytes were required to do two things. First, all men had to be circumcised. This was the outward mark that these men had become a member of the Jewish faith. Second, men and women had to submit themselves to the moral and ritual codes of the Law. They had to adopt the dietary rules as well as strictly maintain the ethical requirements of the Old Testament.
Since the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem were already familiar with doing missionary work and requiring new believers to adhere to the Jewish practices, they assumed new Christians would also have to go through similar steps. However, Paul and Barnabas had not preached about these kinds of practices. They simply preached about Jesus. And so began the conflict.
In simple terms, there were two opposite views of how Gentiles could become Christians. On one hand, Paul and Barnabas preached about Jesus. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Church preached Jesus and the practice of Jewish faith. In their view, a person had to clean up his or her life first by becoming a Jew. THEN, the person could accept Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish expectation.
Fortunately for Paul, he never had to defend himself. (That is the best way to win a debate or argument. Let someone else defend your side.) Peter spoke up and reminded the Jerusalem Church about the time God told him to preach to a Gentile soldier named Cornelius. The church should remember the story Pater is talking about, because they made him explain his actions. At the time, he only had one explanation: God told him to do it. After Peter shared the Good News with Cornelius, Cornelius and his entire family placed their lives in Jesus’ hands. They believed the message of salvation. Then, God confirmed their decision by giving them the Holy Spirit. It was obviously genuine faith, because God only gives his Spirit to those who place their faith in Jesus.
II. God Purified Their Hearts by Faith.
Peter’s testimony about Cornelius’ faith is significant, because he blames all this on God. And Peter was right. God was obviously involved in the spread of the Gospel. God told Peter to preach to non-Jewish people, and God confirmed this before Peter’s eyes by giving the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his family.
Notice what Peter said in verse 9: “He (God) made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.”
It was a big step for Peter to move outside the Jewish tradition to extend the message of salvation to Cornelius. The first lesson he learned was that God loves Jews and non-Jews alike. In God’s eyes, there was no distinction between Jews and non-Jews.
The second lesson Peter learned was that salvation is not about what we can “do” for God. Salvation is what God has “done” for us.
If salvation really was about what we can “do” for God, then Cornelius would have been required to do some purification first. Since Cornelius was not a Jew, he was considered unclean by Jewish standards. Since Cornelius was a Roman soldier, he was considered an enemy of God’s people.
God did not require Cornelius to “do” anything to be saved. God did all the purification Cornelius needed.
This is important for us today. We need to remember that God has called us to share the message of salvation with people who do not live like we live. We should never expect people to “clean up their lives” before coming to church. That is what God does. God accepts anyone who has faith, exactly like we are right now. Then, God begins the work of purifying our hearts.
III. God Showed that He Accepted Them by Giving the Holy Spirit.
Now, look at what Peter said in verse 8: “God, who knows the heart showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.”
I think Peter got ahead of himself, because he started his argument with his conclusion. The Holy Spirit was confirmation that God accepted the faith of Cornelius and his family. BUT, the Holy Spirit did not come to Cornelius until after he placed his faith in Jesus.
This is the way God does the work of purification in our lives. On one hand, God does not expect us to “clean up our lives” before we have faith in Jesus. On the other hand, once God gives his Holy Spirit to us something changes in our lives. God accepts us the way we are. But God does not leave us the way we were. He changes us. He purifies us.
IV. We Should Not Make It Difficult for Gentiles who Are Turning to God.
The second person to speak in the church council was James the brother of Jesus. James was more than likely a Jewish Christian. He was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. But, James became a believer after the Resurrection. History tells us that James never left Jerusalem. He was an important figure in the Jerusalem church, but he was never a missionary. He continued to follow the practices of the Jewish faith while believing that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
James’ words in verses 19 – 20 are interesting: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”
On first glance, it seems that James is suggesting additional requirements for the new Gentile Christians. His suggestions come directly from Leviticus 17 – 18. These were God’s “minimal standards” for people living within the covenant with God. Since these suggestions come from the Old Testament, they sound like additional requirements.
However, I like to think of them differently. I interpret James’ suggestion to mean something like this: “Don’t live like the rest of the world.” The rest of the world constantly faced questions about idolatry and sexual morality. Christians should live by a standard different from the rest of the world.
V. Conclusion.
When we take Peter’s story and James’ suggestion together we get something like what Martin Luther taught about righteousness. A biblical understanding of righteousness does not mean that we ought to work our way to salvation by the way we live our lives. No. Biblical righteousness is basically being in a right relationship with God. A right relationship with God is not something we can accomplish for ourselves. It is something God offers us by Grace, through faith in Jesus.
One of Luther’s important writings was entitled “Two Kinds of Righteousness.” He described the first kind of righteousness as “Alien Righteousness.” It does not come from inside of us. It is alien, or foreign to us. In Peter’s words, God purifies our hearts through faith.
The second kind of righteousness is “Proper Righteousness.” This is the kind of clean living that we do AFTER we come to faith in Jesus. In other words, we respond to God’s Grace by living a new kind of life—a life that is different from the world around us. This life is only possible when the Holy Spirit is living within us.
This is the difference between “do” and “done.” God does not ask us to “do” anything to clean up our lives and achieve our own salvation. God purifies our hearts through faith in what he has already “done” for us in the death of Jesus. But, watch out. Once you give your life to Jesus in faith…The Holy Spirit will change your life to live by a different standard.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008: What Does God Look Like?
What Does God Look Like?
Luke 22: 66 – 71.
I. Introduction.
This is the single most distinctive belief of the Christian faith: If you want to know what God looks like, look at Jesus! Because, Jesus is God. He is God who came to earth as a human being; living out a perfect life without sin; teaching a new kind of ethic; performing healing miracles; and eventually dying on the cross to offer us God’s love and the forgiveness of sins.
I realize that to claim Jesus is God defies all of our modern sensibilities. After all, God is immortal and all powerful while human beings are limited by mortality and imperfect power. It seems to be logically inconsistent for us to claim that an immortal, all powerful God came to earth as a human being. Yet, this is exactly what Jesus claimed to be. Jesus actually claimed to be God.
We can study the life of Jesus in much the same way we can study the life of any ancient, historical person. We turn to historical writings. None of us has ever met Abraham Lincoln. However, we can study the life of Abraham Lincoln by reading historical writings about his life. None of us has ever met Plato. But, again, we can study the life of Plato by reading historical writings about his life.
The historical writings about Jesus are contained in the Bible. There are four historical writings that tell us the story of Jesus’ life: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Read Luke 22: 66 – 71.
This is part of the story about the crucifixion of Jesus. I find it significant that in this Scripture, Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God.
By claiming to be the Son of God, Jesus was claiming to be “of the same nature” as God himself. This is significant for two reasons. First, this explains why the Jews wanted Jesus to be executed. The Jewish Law of the Old Testament says that anyone who claims to be God is guilty of blasphemy, which is punishable by the death penalty. Since Jesus claimed to be God, they wanted him to die.
Second, this is significant, because it shows very clearly that Jesus himself claimed to be God. Divinity was not a later concept that other people projected onto Jesus. Jesus himself claimed to be God.
Some people reject the historical value of the writings about Jesus’ life, because they are contained in a religious book. Other people say we should treat these writings in the same way we would treat any work of history. If we do treat the writings about Jesus in the same way we would treat a biography of Abraham Lincoln or a book about Plato, we discover something very interesting about the Bible. We discover that the Bible is every bit as reliable as any other historical writing.
On one hand, the claims the Bible makes about secular history have been verified by archaeological discovery and by other writings outside of the Bible. No historical claim in the Bible has ever been “overruled” by archaeology or by other historical writings.
On the other hand, scholars have done extensive work to place dates on when the various books of the Bible were written. This work has led us to a general consensus that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written before A.D. 100—less than 70 years after the life of Jesus. In other words, these books about the life of Jesus were written within the life time of men and women who actually saw Jesus and heard his teachings and the claims he made about himself.
Since the Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still living, it was very possible that the claims Jesus made about himself would have been refuted by people who had been there. Yet, no one in the period of time in which the Gospels were written ever said that Jesus never claimed to be God. That is a modern phenomenon. How arrogant for us to think that we know more about Jesus and what he said than people who lived with Jesus 20 centuries ago!
Jesus claimed to be God. Now, what are we going to do about that? I believe Jesus’ claims about himself leave us with only three options. We must decide: Was Jesus a Liar? Was Jesus a Lunatic? Is Jesus Lord?
II. Was Jesus a Liar?
Almost everyone who has ever read the Gospels says that Jesus was a good and wise teacher. In fact, that is what Gandhi said about Jesus. However, Jesus cannot be a good man if he was a liar.
When Jesus claimed to be God, he has forced us to choose between two options. Either Jesus is God, or Jesus is a liar and a bad person. To say Jesus is God is offensive to non-Christians. To say Jesus is a bad person is offensive to Christians. To say Jesus was a good person is an attempt to offend no one. But it is an offense to Jesus.
If Jesus were a liar, then perhaps we can find his motive for lying. Everyone who lies is motivated by some selfish reason. Lying is an attempt to gain money, fame, pleasure or power. But, Jesus got none of these from his claim to be God. Instead, Jesus lived a life of poverty, hated by the world, tortured and eventually killed. Jesus even shunned all attempts people made to enthrone him as a political ruler. Jesus spent his time with the poor and oppressed, not the powerful elite.
III. Was Jesus a Lunatic?
There are people in mental health institutions who believe they are God. Perhaps Jesus did not intentionally lie to us. Perhaps he genuinely believed he was God, but was wrong about it.
People who have what is known as a “divinity complex” demonstrate certain diagnosable characteristics. They are egotistical, narcissistic, predictable and unable to love others. These characteristics do not fit what history says about Jesus. Jesus demonstrated wisdom by the answers he gave to his critics. He considered the needs of other people. He was unpredictable in the ways he lived and responded to others. And, Jesus showed love for other people by the way he ministered to needs and eventually gave his life as a sign of God’s love for us.
IV. Conclusion: Is Jesus Lord?
If Jesus was not a Liar or a Lunatic, then we should take him at his word. He is the Son of God, who lived as an example for us and died to give us forgiveness of sin. God sent his Son to search for you. All of our efforts to search for God will fail. But God’s effort to search for us will succeed in our answer to the question: Who do you believe Jesus is?
□ I want to seek the truth about God.
· God, I don’t even believe you exist. But, if you do exist, I want to find you. I want to know the truth. If you exist, show yourself to me.
□ I want to become a Christian.
· God, I know that I have sinned and that my sins separate me from you. I believe that your Son, Jesus, died on the cross to forgive me of my sins and was resurrected on the third day. Please forgive me of my sins. I invite Jesus to be the Lord of my life. Help me to follow Jesus in the way I live my life.
Luke 22: 66 – 71.
I. Introduction.
This is the single most distinctive belief of the Christian faith: If you want to know what God looks like, look at Jesus! Because, Jesus is God. He is God who came to earth as a human being; living out a perfect life without sin; teaching a new kind of ethic; performing healing miracles; and eventually dying on the cross to offer us God’s love and the forgiveness of sins.
I realize that to claim Jesus is God defies all of our modern sensibilities. After all, God is immortal and all powerful while human beings are limited by mortality and imperfect power. It seems to be logically inconsistent for us to claim that an immortal, all powerful God came to earth as a human being. Yet, this is exactly what Jesus claimed to be. Jesus actually claimed to be God.
We can study the life of Jesus in much the same way we can study the life of any ancient, historical person. We turn to historical writings. None of us has ever met Abraham Lincoln. However, we can study the life of Abraham Lincoln by reading historical writings about his life. None of us has ever met Plato. But, again, we can study the life of Plato by reading historical writings about his life.
The historical writings about Jesus are contained in the Bible. There are four historical writings that tell us the story of Jesus’ life: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Read Luke 22: 66 – 71.
This is part of the story about the crucifixion of Jesus. I find it significant that in this Scripture, Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God.
By claiming to be the Son of God, Jesus was claiming to be “of the same nature” as God himself. This is significant for two reasons. First, this explains why the Jews wanted Jesus to be executed. The Jewish Law of the Old Testament says that anyone who claims to be God is guilty of blasphemy, which is punishable by the death penalty. Since Jesus claimed to be God, they wanted him to die.
Second, this is significant, because it shows very clearly that Jesus himself claimed to be God. Divinity was not a later concept that other people projected onto Jesus. Jesus himself claimed to be God.
Some people reject the historical value of the writings about Jesus’ life, because they are contained in a religious book. Other people say we should treat these writings in the same way we would treat any work of history. If we do treat the writings about Jesus in the same way we would treat a biography of Abraham Lincoln or a book about Plato, we discover something very interesting about the Bible. We discover that the Bible is every bit as reliable as any other historical writing.
On one hand, the claims the Bible makes about secular history have been verified by archaeological discovery and by other writings outside of the Bible. No historical claim in the Bible has ever been “overruled” by archaeology or by other historical writings.
On the other hand, scholars have done extensive work to place dates on when the various books of the Bible were written. This work has led us to a general consensus that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written before A.D. 100—less than 70 years after the life of Jesus. In other words, these books about the life of Jesus were written within the life time of men and women who actually saw Jesus and heard his teachings and the claims he made about himself.
Since the Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still living, it was very possible that the claims Jesus made about himself would have been refuted by people who had been there. Yet, no one in the period of time in which the Gospels were written ever said that Jesus never claimed to be God. That is a modern phenomenon. How arrogant for us to think that we know more about Jesus and what he said than people who lived with Jesus 20 centuries ago!
Jesus claimed to be God. Now, what are we going to do about that? I believe Jesus’ claims about himself leave us with only three options. We must decide: Was Jesus a Liar? Was Jesus a Lunatic? Is Jesus Lord?
II. Was Jesus a Liar?
Almost everyone who has ever read the Gospels says that Jesus was a good and wise teacher. In fact, that is what Gandhi said about Jesus. However, Jesus cannot be a good man if he was a liar.
When Jesus claimed to be God, he has forced us to choose between two options. Either Jesus is God, or Jesus is a liar and a bad person. To say Jesus is God is offensive to non-Christians. To say Jesus is a bad person is offensive to Christians. To say Jesus was a good person is an attempt to offend no one. But it is an offense to Jesus.
If Jesus were a liar, then perhaps we can find his motive for lying. Everyone who lies is motivated by some selfish reason. Lying is an attempt to gain money, fame, pleasure or power. But, Jesus got none of these from his claim to be God. Instead, Jesus lived a life of poverty, hated by the world, tortured and eventually killed. Jesus even shunned all attempts people made to enthrone him as a political ruler. Jesus spent his time with the poor and oppressed, not the powerful elite.
III. Was Jesus a Lunatic?
There are people in mental health institutions who believe they are God. Perhaps Jesus did not intentionally lie to us. Perhaps he genuinely believed he was God, but was wrong about it.
People who have what is known as a “divinity complex” demonstrate certain diagnosable characteristics. They are egotistical, narcissistic, predictable and unable to love others. These characteristics do not fit what history says about Jesus. Jesus demonstrated wisdom by the answers he gave to his critics. He considered the needs of other people. He was unpredictable in the ways he lived and responded to others. And, Jesus showed love for other people by the way he ministered to needs and eventually gave his life as a sign of God’s love for us.
IV. Conclusion: Is Jesus Lord?
If Jesus was not a Liar or a Lunatic, then we should take him at his word. He is the Son of God, who lived as an example for us and died to give us forgiveness of sin. God sent his Son to search for you. All of our efforts to search for God will fail. But God’s effort to search for us will succeed in our answer to the question: Who do you believe Jesus is?
□ I want to seek the truth about God.
· God, I don’t even believe you exist. But, if you do exist, I want to find you. I want to know the truth. If you exist, show yourself to me.
□ I want to become a Christian.
· God, I know that I have sinned and that my sins separate me from you. I believe that your Son, Jesus, died on the cross to forgive me of my sins and was resurrected on the third day. Please forgive me of my sins. I invite Jesus to be the Lord of my life. Help me to follow Jesus in the way I live my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
