All people are penniless in death.

The CEO cannot take her golden parachute to the grave.

The dictator cannot take his blood-money to the casket.

The celebrity cannot bring her fame to the cemetery.

All people are penniless in death.

Therefore, God, I will not envy my co-worker’s estate.  I will not covet my neighbor’s career.  I will not long for my boss’ lake-house.

I will instead satisfy myself with you.  For I know that you will redeem me from the grave and bring me to yourself.

All people are penniless in death. 

But I will be rich.  Because I will have you.

[image]

Robin Meyers grew up in Churches of Christ.[i]  Along his journey, however, he became disenchanted not only with Churches of Christ, but with all theologically conservative groups.  In his book Saving Jesus From the Church Meyers describes this disenchantment as him rejecting Christ but embracing Jesus.  In fact, the subtitle to his book is “How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus.”  Meyers began to make a distinction between the “Christ” whom conservative mainline churches have historically emphasized and the “Jesus” whom Meyers had rediscovered recently in the pages of the Bible.  Meyers ultimately became repulsed by people who mistreated others yet said they believed in the orthodox doctrines about Christ (e.g.,. the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, and his resurrection from the dead).  Meyers came to believe that all of these doctrinal matters about Christ were of little significance.  What mattered most was living out the example left behind by Jesus—treating people the way Jesus would. 

Myers’ choice, of course, a false choice.  We don’t have to choose either the teachings and example of “Jesus” or the doctrines about “Christ.”  We must ultimately choose both.  We cannot decide between worshiping the deity of Christ and following the love teachings of Jesus.  We must choose both.

But Meyers illustrates an important issue.  Sometimes we face real dichotomies regarding Jesus.  For example, Jesus often befriended and hung out with sinful people.  Yet Jesus was also often heard passionately condemning sin in people.  In addition, Jesus was divine and knew his death would be temporary.  Yet Jesus was also human and prayed passionately in the Garden for God to stop his death.  Sometimes we face dichotomies regarding Jesus.

One of those dichotomies is the center of the storm raging in this morning’s text: 35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’  37David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly. (Mk. 12:35-37 ESV)  This is the final debate of the ten debates we’ve explored from Mark’s Gospel.  As with the previous five debates, this one takes place in the temple in Jerusalem.

In this final debate Jesus raises a dichotomy about himself.  Jesus speaks about himself in the third person, referring to “the Christ.”  The Old Testament taught that God would raise a king of all kings who would represent God and God’s agenda upon the earth.  He would be known as the Messiah (in Hebrew) or Christ (in Greek).  And one of the favorite labels which the scribes, Pharisees and others used for the Christ was “son of David.”  The Old Testament taught that the Christ would be a descendent of the great Jewish king David.[ii]  Thus the “Christ” was often called the “son of David.”  For example, earlier in Mk. 10:47 a blind man named Bartimaeus hears Jesus pass by and Bartimaeus cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”  One of the most common ways of talking about the “Christ” was to talk about him as the “son of David.”

Jesus, however, takes issue with this title.  He questions whether “son of David” is an appropriate title for the Christ.  Obviously Jesus is not refuting the fact that the Christ descends from King David.  Both Matthew and Luke point out that Jesus did descend from King David.  Some scholars suggest that Jesus is highlighting the fact that the phrase “son of David” does not appear in the Old Testament in reference to the Christ.  But I doubt Jesus would pick a fight over such a small technicality.  Nowhere does Jesus distance himself from the truth that the Old Testament affirms that the Christ is the son of David, even if the Old Testament never uses that exact phrase.  Instead, Jesus seems to be taking issue with what that title has come to mean in Judaism.  Jesus wants to deconstruct the picture which the contemporary Jew has in his mind when he thinks of the Christ as the “son of David.”

When most Jews thought about the “son of David” the picture in their minds was often a political one.  After all, Israel had a long and sad history of living under the thumb of the reigning world superpower.  There was Egypt.  Then Assyria.  Then Babylon.  Then Persia.  Then Rome.  And no Jew was happy about this.  The commonly held hope was that when the Christ came on the scene, he would change all of this.  He would free Israel from her pagan master and usher in a new period of peace and prosperity.  Those were the sorts of things pictured in the mind of the contemporary Jew when he thought of the “son of David.”

Jesus doesn’t like what people think of when they think of that label.  So Jesus points to an alternate label for the Christ.  He uses Ps. 110.  The Psalm is attributed to King David. And it begins this way: 1The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (Ps. 110:1 ESV).  The first “LORD” refers to God.  King David says he heard God speak—“The LORD says…”   David heard God speaking.  And to whom was God speaking?  God, David says, was speaking to “my Lord”—“The LORD says to my Lord.”  King David heard God speaking to someone whom David calls “my Lord.”  Jesus says “my Lord” is a reference to the Christ.  According to Jesus, in this Psalm, King David heard God—the LORD—speak to the Christ—whom David calls “my Lord.”  David was a king.  Everyone else should call him “my Lord.”  Yet here David calls the Christ “my Lord.”  King David understood that there was someone with more authority than his—the Christ.  There was someone with more power than his—the Christ. 

And to the one higher than even King David, God said, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”  Placing enemies under one’s feet was a sign of sovereignty and victory in the ancient near east.^[iii]  God doesn’t tell David that David’s enemies will be conquered and that David will be victorious.  God tells the Christ that the Christ’s enemies will be conquered and that Christ will be victorious.  God promises to completely remove anything standing in the way of the rule and reign of the Christ.

Psalm 110 raises a dichotomy between Jesus as “son” and Jesus as “Lord.”  The designation “son” in the Psalm points to the Christ’s relationship with David.  He is the “son” of David.  He descended from David.  But the designation “Lord” in the Psalm points to the Christ’s relationship with God.  He is the “Lord” at the right hand of God.  The word “son” leans in the direction of the humanity of the Christ.  He came from a human family.  The word “Lord” leans in the direction of the deity of the Christ.  The word “son” might suggest to some his role as a political leader over the nation of Israel.  The word “Lord” suggests his role as cosmic ruler over all nations.

Jesus was revealing that what people thought about the Christ when they thought of him as “son of David” was not correct.  If they had personal political ambitions as they thought about the Christ as “son of David,” they should think again.  Because the Christ was not coming as just a bright star in the political future of Israel.  He was coming as Lord, as ruler, as king over all nations.

And this ancient struggle to understand the Christ points to some modern struggles as well.  Today, religion presents the Christ as “servant” while Jesus presents the Christ as “Sovereign.”  There may have been a tendency in Jesus’ day, when thinking of the Christ as “son of David,” to think of him as the “servant of David.”  Whatever King David’s agenda, the Christ was the servant of that agenda.  Whatever King David’s goals, the Christ was the means toward those goals.

But Jesus presents himself here not as “servant” in that regard, but “Sovereign.”  King David stands below, not above, the Christ.  King David’s desires stand below, not above, those of the Christ.  The Christ is not a means toward David’s ends or Israel’s ends.  Just the opposite.  Israel and David are the means toward the Christ’s ends.  The Christ is not “servant” of Israel or David.  He is sovereign over Israel and David.

Linda Seger illustrates a contemporary form of this problem in her 2006 book Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don’t Have the Corner on Christ.[iv]  Seger tries to show how Democratic policies, not Republican policies, best align with the teachings of Jesus.  Whether she is right or wrong is not my point.  The point is that in our culture, Jesus is often used to promote the agenda of political parties.  He is presented as “servant” of whatever political party wishes to wield him. 

And religion often falls into this same trap.  Religion can imply that Jesus supports this political party or this political party, whichever political party is going to make it easier for that religion to gain prominence in the United States.

 But religion can do this in other ways as well.  Televangelists are infamous for this.  They use Jesus as a means to their goals of wealth and luxury.  Jesus is just their servant, a way to get what they really want.

Yet Jesus presents himself to us not as servant of our agendas and wishes but as sovereign over those agendas and wishes.  The Highland Church of Christ cannot use Jesus to get our way.  Jesus wants to use the Highland Church of Christ to get his way.  No political party can use Jesus to fulfill their platform.  Jesus seeks to use them to fulfill his platform.  Religion presents the Christ as “servant.”  But Jesus presents the Christ as “Sovereign.”  

There is another modern element to the dichotomy raised in this text.  The word “son” pointed to the human lineage of the Christ.  He was the human son of the human King David.  But the word “Lord” pointed to the divine origin of the Christ.  He was deity.  He was divine.

And sometimes that human identity of the Christ overshadows the divine identity of the Christ.  And it shows up in this way: Religion presents the Christ as pastor.  Jesus presents the Christ as Master.  The word “son” in the text points to the human side of the Christ.  And that is one of the sides of Christ  toward which we are most drawn.  Because it’s the pastoral side of Jesus.  He knows what it’s like to be hungry.  He knows what it’s like to be tired.  He can relate to having too much to do.  He can identify with my problems.  Because he is human. 

And this makes Jesus a wonderful pastor.  He can comfort.  He can counsel.  He can connect in meaningful ways.  I remember a time about a decade ago when I was really wrestling with the fact that many in my extended family were not followers of Jesus.  And a friend named Ed Gray reminded me that there was a time when some of Jesus’ family members rejected him.  Ed reminded me that Jesus knew what I was feeling because Jesus had felt that himself.  Jesus’ experiences as a human being make him a perfect pastor.

And that certainly is an important side to Jesus.  We desperately need a Christ who has walked in our shoes, who knows what it’s like to be human.  That’s the only way he can truly be our pastor.

But in religion that’s the only side to Christ.  And Jesus does not wish to be one-sided.  In this text, he points beyond the word “son” which highlights his humanity, and lands on the word “Lord.”  With this word, Jesus demonstrates that he does not merely wish to be pastor.  He also wishes to be Master.

Kevin DeYoung writes about our tendency to view Jesus as everything but Lord, as everything but Master:[v]

There’s the Republican Jesus—who is against tax increases and activist judges, for family values and owning firearms.

There’s Democrat Jesus—who is against Wall Street and Wal-Mart, for reducing our carbon footprint and printing money.

There’s Therapist Jesus—who helps us cope with life’s problems, heals our past, tells us how valuable we are and not to be so hard on ourselves.

There’s Starbucks Jesus—who drinks fair trade coffee, loves spiritual conversations, drives a hybrid, and goes to film festivals.

There’s Open-minded Jesus—who loves everyone all the time no matter what (except for people who are not as open-minded as you).

There’s Touchdown Jesus—who helps athletes run faster and jump higher than non-Christians and determines the outcomes of Super Bowls.

There’s Martyr Jesus—a good man who died a cruel death so we can feel sorry for him.

There’s Gentle Jesus—who was meek and mild, with high cheek bones, flowing hair, and walks around barefoot, wearing a sash (while looking very German).

There’s Hippie Jesus—who teaches everyone to give peace a chance, imagines a world without religion, and helps us remember that “all you need is love.”

There’s Yuppie Jesus—who encourages us to reach our full potential, reach for the stars, and buy a boat.

There’s Spirituality Jesus—who hates religion, churches, pastors, priests, and doctrine, and would rather have people out in nature, finding “the god within” while listening to ambiguously spiritual music.

There’s Platitude Jesus—good for Christmas specials, greeting cards, and bad sermons, inspiring people to believe in themselves.

There’s Revolutionary Jesus—who teaches us to rebel against the status quo, stick it to the man, and blame things on “the system.”

There’s Guru Jesus—a wise, inspirational teacher who believes in you and helps you find your center.

There’s Boyfriend Jesus—who wraps his arms around us as we sing about his intoxicating love in our secret place.

There’s Good Example Jesus—who shows you how to help people, change the planet, and become a better you.

And then there’s Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. Not just another prophet. Not just another Rabbi. Not just another wonder-worker…This Jesus was the Creator come to earth and the beginning of a New Creation…This Jesus is the Christ that God spoke of to the Serpent; the Christ prefigured to Noah in the flood; the Christ promised to Abraham; the Christ prophesied through Balaam before the Moabites; the Christ guaranteed to Moses before he died; the Christ promised to David when he was king; the Christ revealed to Isaiah as a Suffering Servant; the Christ predicted through the Prophets and prepared for through John the Baptist.  This Christ is not a reflection of the current mood or the projection of our own desires. He is our Lord and God. He is the Father’s Son, Savior of the world, and substitute for our sins—more loving, more holy, and more wonderfully terrifying than we ever thought possible.

Religion offers you a Jesus who will be any of those on DeYoung’s list.  But what Jesus offers is himself as Lord and Master.  The ruler.  The boss.  The CEO.  The President.  The King.  The chief.  The commander.  The one in charge. 

As Jesus ends these ten conflicts with religion, he does so by pointing to himself as the one who towers above all that religion and all that conflict and all that power struggle.  He is Lord.  He is Master.  He will not be argued into a corner.  He will not be dismissed as irrelevant.  He will not be browbeaten.  He will be heard.  He will be respected.

This, of course, is not meant to scare off anyone.  For most of this series we’ve seen a portrait of religion that ought to scare people off religion and toward Jesus.  But as we end this series, we pause a moment before we rush to Jesus unthinkingly.  The one thing religion has going for it is its willingness to let Jesus be whatever you want him to be.  Ultimately, I think that’s what Jesus was pointing to in this text.  Contemporary Jews used “son of David” to make the Christ be who they wanted him to be.  But if you decide to really follow Jesus, you decide to let Jesus make you whatever he wants you to be.  He becomes not merely your servant but your Sovereign.  He becomes not just your pastor.  But your Master.

[ii] 2 Sam. 7:8-16; Ps. 89:3-4; Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:9; 33:15-17, 22; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11.

^[iii] Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (380). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

[iv] Linda Seger, Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don’t Have the Corner on Christ (Adams Media, 2006).

[v] Kevin DeYoung, “Who Do You Say That I Am?” from his DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed blog (6-10-09).

We wrestle with this relationship between church and state, Christ and culture, politics and religion.  In broader terms, this is really a struggle over sacred versus secular.  There’s the sacred world of church, Christ, and religion.  And there’s the secular world of state, culture, and politics.  And we struggle with the relationship between the two.  One of the things that sparks debate is how we deal with the sacred world and the secular world.

This is the very issue which some local leaders bring to Jesus in our text this morning: 13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. (Mk. 12:13-17 ESV)

This verbal boxing match takes place in the temple.  As we heard last Sunday, in Mk. 11:27 members of the Sanhedrin—the Jewish high court—have just confronted Jesus at the temple.  Jesus then tells a parable in Mk. 12:1 which casts the Sanhedrin in the worst possible light.  The members of the Sanhedrin realize this.  Thus in Mk. 12:13 they send “some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians to trap him in his talk.”  We saw the Pharisees and Herodians collaborating together in Mk. 3 after Jesus healed a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath.  Today, in the temple, these two strange bedfellows are partnered again.

The Pharisees and the Herodians are an odd couple because they stand on opposite ends of the continuum of church and state, or sacred and secular.  This is overstating the case a bit, but if the Pharisees were on the “sacred” end of the spectrum, the Herodians were on the “secular” end of the spectrum. The name “Pharisees” probably means something like “separated ones.”  The Pharisees are defined by their desire to be separate from anything secular—that is anything ungodly or unclean.  On the other hand, the name “Herodians” suggests a group of people enthusiastically engaged in things secular.  As we heard earlier in this series, the local political scene in Jesus’ day was dominated by members of the Herod family.  The Herodians were people who actively supported this family.  They participated actively in the political process and essentially supported the ultimate authority for whom the Herod’s worked: Rome.  These Pharisees want nothing to do with secular culture.  The Herodians have everything to do with secular culture.  Yet here, they team up to battle Jesus.

They lob a nuclear-bomb at Jesus in the form of a question about a controversial issue: 14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” The controversial issue is the payment of taxes to the Roman Caesar.  The Caesar whom the Pharisees and Herodians mention is Tiberius. ^[ii] Tiberius was the second emperor of the Roman Empire.  Tiberius had been adopted by Caesar Augustus and he became the successor to the throne upon Augustus’ death in A.D. 14.

The coin used to pay the tax to Tiberius is the “denarius.”  The denarius had an image of Tiberius inscribed on it, along with the wording, “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.”^[iii] The inscription states that Tiberius along with his father Augustus is divine.  This coin was a source of great tension.  It had on it the image of Tiberius, the leader of the Roman nation who had taken over Israel.  And it had words on it calling Tiberius divine.  To the most devout Jews, the coin itself was blasphemous.  In fact, there were some Jews who were so scrupulous that they avoided even looking at Roman coins.[iv] That may be what the Pharisees and Herodians suggest about Jesus when they tell Jesus, “you are not swayed by appearances.” Literally, they say, “you do not look at people’s faces.”  They may be saying, tongue in check, “I bet you’re so scrupulous that you don’t even look at the face of Tiberius on these blasphemous coins.”[v]

Not only was the coin a cause of friction.  So was the tax it was used to pay.  The word “taxes” used here indicates a tax that was paid to the Roman government by every adult male.  The tax had to be paid in Roman coinage—the denarius.^[vi] And the people despised the tax.  Both the book of Acts (Acts 5:37) and an ancient historian (Josephus) mention a man named Judas the Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against Rome in the first century over the issue of taxation.  Pious and devout Jews wanted nothing to do with the coin and the tax.

This question about paying taxes to Caesar touches on the larger issues of sacred and secular.  Specifically, when they ask “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” they are referring to the Law of Moses, to the Scriptures, and to the sacred world in general.  The first part of their question raises the bigger question of how to live in the sacred world, how to obey the law of God, how to walk rightly in relationship with God.  And when they ask “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” they are referring to the secular world. The second part of their question raises the bigger question of how to live in the secular world, how to walk rightly in relationship with political powers and secular institutions.  The question about the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar is a question about life in the sacred world versus life in the secular world.

No matter how Jesus answers this question, he cannot win.  If he indicates that pious Jews should use those ungodly coins to pay that wicked tax, he will be accused by the Pharisees of neglecting the sacred world.  But if Jesus indicates that pious Jews should tear up their blasphemous tax forms and throw away those irreverent coins, he will be accused by the Herodians of neglecting the secular world.  Jesus is caught in that tension between the sacred and the secular.

Yet listen to Jesus’ answer: 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. (Mk. 12:13-17 ESV)  First, Jesus counsels, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…”  And with this line, Jesus highlights an important difference between religion and following Jesus.  Religion argues that the sacred should have nothing to do with the secular. The Pharisees seem certain that Jesus will agree with them, because that’s the common opinion on the Jewish street.  True, devout, spiritual, and godly Jews want nothing to do with this secular tax and secular coin.  Religion argues that the sacred should have nothing to do with the secular.  What we ought to do is isolate ourselves from that world and protect ourselves from it.

But Jesus argues that true, devout, spiritual and godly Jews must have something to do with the secular.  They have an obligation toward the Empire.  They benefit from the Empire and they should contribute toward the Empire.  They should render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.  Jesus argues that the sacred must have something to do with the secular.

James Emory White writes that in the ancient world, when mapmakers came to the end of the terrain they were certain about, they would write in the margins of the map “Here be Dragons.”[vii] It was their way of acknowledging that beyond those borders, beyond their safe and known world, there were Dragons—that is, there was danger.  Some today have a similar perspective when it comes to what lies outside the small sacred world they live in.

• I regularly read Facebook status’ from Christians in which they warn about the corruption of the government in Washington, the evil of Wall Street, or ills of contemporary culture.  They seem to be saying “Here be Dragons! We ought not to have anything to do with the secular because it’s just too dangerous out there.”
• I overheard an educator recently talking about a group of students touring the 9-11 site in New York City and how some of the students didn’t know what 9-11 was—because their parents had shielded them from any news of what happened on September 11.  “Here be Dragons!” those parents seemed to be saying.  They didn’t seem to want their kids to have anything to do with that secular world.

Sometimes we act as if we believe that our sacred world can have nothing to do with the secular world.  And what we need to do is to isolate ourselves from and protect ourselves from that secular world.

To be clear, there are Dragons out there.  Yet Jesus reveals that true followers of God have a role to play among the Dragons.  We are expected to contribute meaningfully to our larger society.  We are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.  There is an active role we are to take in the secular world.

• A Highland father recently shared about having his son play in a secular sports league rather than in the church league.  It made for some tense times, but it was their attempt to get out and contribute meaningfully among the Dragons.
• The blood drive we held a few Sundays ago is a good example of this.  On the surface a church and Lifeblood seem to have nothing in common.  But it was the perfect opportunity for us to participate positively in our secular community.
• LeBonheur Children’s Hospital and the Highland church might seem worlds apart.  But we’ve recently adopted their neo-natal intensive care unit because it’s one way for us to get out of our little world and take part in the larger world.
• Some of you may work for schools or companies or organizations which seem to be completely secular.  And yet your sacred presence there each workday contributes meaningfully among the Dragons.

Jesus argues that the sacred must have something to do with the secular.

But Jesus takes things even further: 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. (Mk. 12:13-17 ESV)  Jesus not only urges us to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” but to render “to God the things that are God’s.”  And with that final phrase Jesus shatters this nice distinction that religion likes to make between sacred and secular.  After all, what are the things that are God’s?  What is Jesus talking about when he describes the “things that are God’s” which we are to render to God?  The answer seems to be “everything.”  Doesn’t everything belong to God?  Isn’t that part of what it means to be God?  If God is really God, then everything on this planet and in our lives is God’s—the sacred and the secular.   

For many years a popular understanding of what Jesus means focuses on verse 16: And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” The coin contained an image of Tiberius Caesar.  For this reason, Jesus argued, the coin should be used in ways that pleased Tiberius.  And many throughout the centuries have pointed out that just as that coin had an image on it, so we humans are inscribed with an image.  We are each made in the image of God.  Just as Caesar’s image made the coin his, so our being stamped in God’s image makes us God’s.  Thus, when Jesus urges us to “render to God what is God’s” he may ultimately be referring to us and all that we are and all that we have.  We are what belong to God.  Thus we are to give ourselves—money, time, talents, everything—to God.

Jesus is ultimately saying that God is concerned with all of life—the sacred and the secular.  It’s not either/or.  It’s both/and.  We can’t just leave it with “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”  We can’t just leave it with, “Spend a little bit of your time and effort contributing meaningfully to the culture.”  Jesus takes it all the way.  What God wants is people willing to give all of their life—all the sacred and all the secular—over to him.  Our politics.  Our careers.  Our families.  Our friends.  And every minute of every day.

Mark Batterson writes about  Wilson Bentley:[viii] Wilson grew up on a farm in Jericho, Vermont, and as a young boy he developed a fascination with snowflakes. Obsession might be a better word for it. Most people go indoors during snowstorms. Not Wilson. He would run outside when the flakes started falling, catch them on black velvet, look at them under a microscope, and take photographs of them before they melted. His first photomicrograph of a snowflake was taken on January 15, 1885. Wilson Bentley wrote: “Under the microscope, I found that snowflakes were miracles of beauty; and it seemed a shame that this beauty should not be seen and appreciated by others. Every crystal was a masterpiece of design and no one design was ever repeated. When a snowflake melted, that design was forever lost. Just that much beauty was gone, without leaving any record behind.” Mark Batterson continues: The first known photographer of snowflakes, Wilson pursued his passion for more than fifty years. He amassed a collection of 5,381 photographs that was published in his magnum opus, titled Snow Crystals. And then he died a fitting death—a death that symbolized and epitomized his life. Wilson “Snowflake” Bentley contracted pneumonia while walking six miles through a severe snowstorm and died on December 23, 1931. Batterson concludes: And that is how I figured out how I want to die. No, I don’t want to die from pneumonia. But I do want to die doing what I love. I am determined to pursue God-ordained passions until the day I die.

I think that’s the spirit behind what Jesus says here.  I think Jesus is calling for reckless abandon.  No more wondering what’s sacred and what’s secular and where the Dragons are and where they aren’t.  No more trying to draw lines and trying to get the map just right.  Jesus is looking for a person who will just render to God’s what is God’s—all they have and all they are.  Jesus is seeking people who will do what God loves and die doing what God loves.  He’s calling for an obsession.  He’s asking you and me to simply turn over all of life to God and for God’s purposes.

^[ii] Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (1004). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

^[iii] Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (1004). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

[iv] Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Eerdmans, 1993), 697.

[v] Gundry, 697.

^[vi] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (577). New York: United Bible societies.

[vii] James Emory White, Christ Among  the Dragons (IVP, 2010).

[viii] Mark Batterson, Wild Goose Chase (Multnomah, 2008), pp. 15-16

Summer Celebration – Lipscomb University – July, 2010

In a recent article for Christianity Today Ed Stetzer surveyed multiple studies of the Christian faith in America and then provided these concluding thoughts:[1] “Mainline denominations are no longer bleeding; they are hemorrhaging. Increasingly, they are simply managing their decline. For evangelicals, the picture is better, but only in comparison to the mainline churches. Southern Baptists, composing the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., have apparently peaked and are trending toward decline. The same is true of most evangelical denominations…. There is little doubt in my mind that the cultural expression of Christianity in America is declining. True, Christianity is losing its “home-field advantage” in North America.” There is little doubt that Christianity in America is facing significant challenges and that fewer Americans are embracing the Christian faith.

Twenty years ago I was part of that massive group of “unchurched” Americans.  I was far away from God and from church.  Yet God used a high school senior named Gary Cox to lead me to faith in God and participation in church.

So, on the one hand many of us recognize that we Christians aren’t doing even a mediocre job in leading people in America to faith in God.  On the other hand, as my story illustrates, we know it is possible to lead people to faith.  And, I think, most of us want to see that possibility become reality.  We want the hurting people in our communities to know the joy of faith in God.  We want to bring an end to the decline Stetzer writes about.

That is what makes Matt. 5-10 such an important season of Jesus’ life to explore.  These six chapters may be the most important six chapters from Jesus’ life for those of us who no longer wish to see our country being one of the unchurched nations in the world. 

Matt. 5-10 begins with a vision.  It’s a vision which many of us share.  As Matt. 5 opens, Jesus dreams a dream.  Jesus sees us who follow him as salt which can remove and prevent decay in the lives of people around the world.  And, Jesus sees us who follow him as light which can dispel darkness around the world.  Here’s how Jesus puts it: You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world.  A city on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl.  Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.  (Matt. 5:13, 14-16 TNIV)  In Matt. 5 Jesus gives his vision: “Imagine being salt and light.”  Jesus believes we and our churches can be so salty and so full of light that people around us will “glorify your Father in heaven.”  That’s how Matt. 5-10 begins. 

Notice how this section ends.  At the end of Matt. 9 Jesus urges us to pray for the Father to send out people to be salt and light: The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.  Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.  (Matt. 9:37-38 TNIV).  Jesus urges us to pray for the Father to send people out to be salt and light.  Then in Matt. 10, Jesus answers that prayer.  In Matt. 10 Jesus actually sends us out to be salt and light: Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness…These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions… (Matt. 10:1,5 TNIV).  Jesus begins Matt. 5-10 by urging us to imagine ourselves as salt and light—agents who can lead lost, lonely, and hurting people to faith in the Father.  Jesus ends this section by sending us to be salt and light.  In Matt. 5 we get the vision: “Imagine being salt and light.”  In Matt. 10 we get the commission: “Go and be salt and light.”   

But how do we get from that vision to that commission?  How do we turn that possibility into reality, especially in a changing culture like ours?  That’s what Matt. 5-9 is about.  In Matt. 5-9 Jesus presents all that is necessary for the dream to be put into action.   Specifically, in Matt. 5-7 Jesus gives us instruction.  Jesus instructs us on the kind of character and lifestyle we and our churches must have if we want to be salt and light.  Also known as the Sermon on the Mount, this instruction is the clearest teaching in the Gospels of the kind of people we need to be in order to be salt and light.  In Matt. 5-7 Jesus instructs how to be the salt and light. 

Then in Matt. 8-9 we find demonstration.   Jesus demonstrates how to be salt and light.  Jesus lets us tag along as he interacts with lost, lonely, and hurting people and becomes salt and light in their lives.  Jesus models the kinds of practices which we and our churches can do that will lead people to faith in the Father. 

But before we dive into Jesus’ demonstration, there is a mindset we must embrace, because it sets the context for everything else in Matt. 8-9: 14Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” 15And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. 17Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” (Matt. 9:14-17 ESV)   John’s disciples ask, Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”  John’s probably referring to the common practice of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays.[2]  And he wants to know why Jesus’ disciples don’t fast on Mondays and Thursdays. 

To answer, Jesus borrows imagery from Is. and Ez. in which God is described as a bridegroom. 

Here, Jesus describes himself as a bridegroom.  He imagines his ministry as a wedding, a time of joy and happiness.  Thus, he says, now is a time for feasting, not fasting.  As Matt. 8-9 will make clear, now is a time of celebration because people are being healed, forgiven, and freed from evil spirits.[3] But eventually, when the bridegroom is taken—a reference to Jesus’ crucifixion—then it will be a somber time, a time more suited to fasting. 

Then Jesus uses this wedding imagery to address a larger issue. [4]   A key ingredient of weddings in Jesus’ day was wine.  When you hosted a wedding, you provided wine.  So, having described himself as a bridegroom, and his ministry as a wedding-like celebration, Jesus now talks about wine.  He says that if you put new wine, which is still in the process of fermenting, into an old wineskin, that wineskin may burst. In Jesus’ day people would sew animal skins together to make a container for liquid like wine.  Once filled with wine, the container would expand as the wine fermented.  But once these skins stretched to their limit and hardened, they could expand no more.  Taking one of these old and inflexible wineskins and filling it with new wine would cause it to burst.[5]

Why does Jesus raise this issue of wineskins?  His comment comes in the context of growing conflict between himself and the religious leaders.  Jesus is busy in Matt. 8-9 demonstrating how to be salt and light, but the religious leaders keep criticizing him: 

• For example, in Matt. 9:1-8 Jesus restores mobility to a paralyzed man and forgives his sins, but the teachers of the law respond by muttering, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 
• In Matt. 9:9-13 Jesus establishes friendships with people far from God but the Pharisees respond by critiquing him for eating with sinners and tax collectors. 
• In Matt. 9:27-34 Jesus drives an evil spirit out of a man but the Pharisees snap, “It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons.” 
• And here in this text about wineskins, we find even the disciples of John, one of Jesus’ greatest supporters, wondering about Jesus’ methods.

To use Jesus’ imagery, we could say that the religious establishment is not satisfied with Jesus’ wineskin.  The wineskin is the external expression of Jesus’ ministry.  It’s the words and actions Jesus is using to demonstrate how to be salt and light.  That’s the wineskin.  And the religious leaders don’t like what they see.  They don’t like Jesus’ wineskin.  Why?  Because it doesn’t look like the wineskin of their traditions and customs.  They are used to doing religion in a certain way.  And here is Jesus doing it in a different way.  In fact, Jesus’ wineskin, his way of being salt and light, looks so different that they have been accusing Jesus of abandoning the Bible.  Earlier in this section Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…” (Matt. 5:17).  Jesus says this because that’s what he has been accused of doing.  Jesus’ way of being salt and light is so revolutionary that that the religious leaders accuse him of abandoning the Bible.

And in the face of this controversy, Jesus says, “It’s time for a new wineskin.  What I’m here to do for lost, lonely, and hurting people is so revolutionary, it calls for a new wineskin.  It’s not going to look the way religion’s always looked.  It’s got to be given new expressions, forms, and practices. 

And this statement provides the foundational key for us becoming the salt and light we long to be.  Because the truth is that we American Christians have strayed from Jesus’ way of being salt and light.  We and our churches have developed our own customs, our own habits, our own ways of doing church, and ministry, and outreach.  And some of these have actually gotten in the way of our being the salt and light Jesus envisions and commissions in Matt. 5-10.

Here’s one piece of evidence to consider:  In January of this year, Church Relevance collected studies of the fastest growing churches in America from 2004-2009.  Based on these studies, Church Relevance put together a list of the Top Ten churches which consistently experienced high levels of growth over this 6 year period (I’ve inserted the founding date of each church (based on the church’s website)):

1996 – Crossroads Community Church (Cincinnati, OH)

1988 – Lancaster County Bible Church (Manheim, PA)

1996 – LifeChurch.tv (Edmond, OK)

2001 – Church of the Highlands (Birmingham, AL)

1980 – Saddleback Church (Lake Forest, CA)

1993 – Woodlands Church (Woodlands, TX)

1988 – Seacoast Church (Mt. Pleasant, SC)

1990 – Community Bible Church (San Antonio, TX)

1998 – Bay Area Fellowship (Corpus Christi, TX)

1995 – CedarCreek Church (Perrysburg, OH)

Notice that all of these churches are 30 years old or younger.  There is no church above 30 on the list.  Why does age seem to hinder consistent and significant growth?  It has to do with our wineskin.  We in established churches have developed our own wineskins, our own ways of being salt and light.  And sometimes those ways are so different from Jesus’ way that when Jesus tries to pour his wine, his salt and light ways, into our wineskin, it just doesn’t work.  Jesus’ way of being salt and light requires new expressions, forms, and practices.

This is especially true given the radical changes taking place in our culture.  Here in America we are witnessing two “cultural revolutions.”  One cultural revolution is the shift from Christian to non-Christian.  One of the most comprehensive studies of the spiritual lives of Americans presents these findings (2008):[6]the number of Americans who report being members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%; From 1972 through 2006 those with no religious preference have increased from approximately 5% to over 15%.  Our culture is shifting from a Christian one to a non-Christian one.

A second cultural revolution is the shift from Modern to Postmodern.  “Modern” and “Postmodern” are different worldviews, different ways of thinking about life.[7]  

1. Modernism believed that reason, not religion, offered the best hope for understanding and explaining life.
2. Modernism believed in human autonomy.  It said that humans are independent from God, do not need God.
3. Modernism believed in the positive progress of human history.  Through reason, science, technology, and effort humans could create a bright future characterized by prosperity and peace. 

But this Modern way of thinking about life is being replaced by a Postmodern way of thinking about life.  In my book Preaching to Pluralists I use seven characteristics to describe Postmoderns. 

1. The most dominant characteristic is pluralism.  Pluralism is the belief that there is not just one Truth, but many truths.  As a result, postmoderns are turned off by what they view as the intolerance and exclusivity of Christianity.
2. A second characteristic of the postmodern culture is its anti-institutional bias.   That is, postmoderns are not interested in the institutional element of Christianity—the church.
3. Pragmatism is a third quality.  In terms of spirituality, they are primarily interested in having a better life before death, not in securing a better life after death.
4. Fourth, postmoderns are uninformed about basic Christianity.  Because they are growing up in a non-Christian culture and not pursuing a faith within Christian institutions, they know little about the Christian faith.    
5. A fifth characteristic concerns their spirituality.  Postmoderns may not be Christian.  They may not be in church.  But they are interested in spiritual matters. 
6. Sixth, Postmoderns are experiential.  When it comes to their spirituality, they do not care if a place offers the correct doctrine about God.  They care more if a place offers a stimulating experience of God.
7. Finally, Postmoderns are relational.  Of those who do darken the doors of a church, many say they are looking for some kind of community. 

And here’s the challenge: most established churches developed a wineskin, a way of being salt and light, that fit a Christian culture filled with people who had a Modern worldview.  But that Christian culture is turning more toward a non-Christian culture.  And that Modern worldview is being replaced by a Postmodern worldview.  As a result, our wineskin needs reinvestigation.  We may, more than ever before, need to set aside our customs, our comforts, and our habits and embrace the new expressions, forms, and practices of Jesus. 

Last summer I read Barbara Kingsolver’s New York Times Bestseller The Poisonwood Bible.[8]  It is the tragic story of a Christian who refused to set aside his own customs and embrace the ways of Jesus.  The narrative takes place in the early 1960’s and focuses on a Georgia Baptist preacher and his family: Nathan and Orleanna Price and their girls Rachel, Leah and Adah (twins), and Ruth May.  Nathan moves his family to the Congo in order to lead the Congolese to faith in the Father.  Nathan ends every sermon in the Congo with these words: Jesus is bangala!  Bangala was a native word.  Pronounced one way, the word means “great.”  Pronounced another way, the word refers to a poisonwood tree which will, in the words of one of the story’s characters, “make you itch like nobody’s business.”  What Nathan means is “Jesus is great!”  But because he pronounces the word wrong, what he actually says is, “Jesus is poisonwood!”  And the novel reveals how, even though Nathan wants the Congolese to believe Jesus is great, Nathan actually makes Jesus poisonwood to them. 

How?  It has to do with Nathan’s wineskin.  The way Nathan goes about being salt and light actually makes Jesus unappealing to the Congolese.  Nathan assumes that what worked in Georgia will work in the Congo.  He makes this assumption about everyday kinds of things.  For example Nathan started a garden in order to demonstrate to the tribe’s people how to grow food.  Just as he had in Georgia, he planted his garden on a flat plot of land.  But one tribesperson urged him to create large mounds on which to plant the seeds.  Nathan refused.  At the first torrential rain, all of Nathan’s seeds washed away.  The tribespeople knew that to grow crops in the Congo, seeds must be elevated.  But Nathan was unwilling to consider that what worked in Georgia wouldn’t work in the Congo.

Worse, Nathan did the same thing in his ministry.  For example, when the Price family first arrived, the tribe welcomed them with a feast, a feast that cost the tribe a great deal.  The tribe’s leader asked Nathan to say a word at the end of the feast.  Nathan immediately started preaching about Sodom and Gomorrah.  At the end of his remarks he grabbed one of the tribe’s women—all of whom wore no clothes on their tops—and he condemned her for her nakedness.  What Nathan failed to realize was that none in the tribe considered going without a shirt to be immodest.  They did consider it immodest to show one’s legs.  But Nathan allowed his wife and his girls to go around the village in pants that revealed their legs.  Nathan couldn’t fathom that what worked in Georgia wouldn’t work in the Congo.

And at his first Sunday service, Nathan urged all the tribe’s people to follow him to the Kwilu river to be baptized.  Nathan envisioned hundreds of them in white clothes being baptized into Christ in the Kwilu river.  Upon hearing the invitation, however, the tribe’s people were alarmed.  Why?  The Kwilu river was filled with crocodiles and children had been devoured in that river.  Still, week after week Nathan urged people to be baptized in the Kwilu river.  Jesus is bangala Nathan kept preaching.  He wanted them to believe Jesus was great.  But his way of being salt and light was ultimately making Jesus poisonwood.

There is a sense in which some of our customary ways of being salt and light may be as unfit for a post-Christian and Postmodern culture as the customary ways of a Georgia preacher are unfit for the Congo.  There is sense in which in some of our attempts to be salt and light, we may be leading people to conclude that Jesus is poisonwood instead of concluding that Jesus is great.  Like Nathan, we may need to reinvestigate our wineskin.  We may need to confess that our ways are not the revolutionary ways of Jesus.

Fortunately, it’s not as complex as we may fear.  It is hard.  It is daunting.  But it is not complex.  Ultimately what it takes is a return to the simple and ancient practices of Jesus, those he demonstrates so well in Matt. 5-10.  As we survey those chapters, we see five revolutions, five changes we may need to consider if we truly desire to be the salt and light Jesus envisions.

First, Jesus’ words in Matt. 8-9 about wineskins call us to move from our customary ways of ministry, created for a Christian and Modern culture, to a more contextual way of ministry that takes into account cultural changes.  It calls for a more incarnational approach to ministry. Jesus’ example in these two chapters reminds us to be open to new ways of thinking about and approaching outreach.  Many of these I cover in my book Preaching to Pluralists.    

Second, Jesus demonstrates character.  We see the power of character in Jesus’ interactions with people in Matt. 8-10.  In Matt. 8:2-4 Jesus interacts with a leper: 2 A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”  3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. 4 Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”   Notice what Jesus did.  He touched the man.  He not only drew close to him.  He touched him.  He showed great compassion.

We see the touch of Jesus’ character throughout Matt. 8-9:

• When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.  He touched her hand and the fever left her…(Matt. 8:14-15 TNIV)
• While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died.”…After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up… (Matt. 9:18,25 TNIV)
• As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”…Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”; and their sight was restored… (Matt. 9:27, 29-30 TNIV)

For Jesus, it was rarely enough to just say something.  Jesus also wanted to do something.  Jesus touched people.  In every encounter in Matt. 8-9 Jesus becomes the good news the people so desperately need.

And just in case we miss the point, Matthew includes this description of Jesus in Matt. 9:35-36 :35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.  (Matt. 9:35-36 TNIV).  Matthew uses these words as a summary of Matt. 8-9.  For Matthew, this is how Jesus demonstrated salt and light: by showing compassion.   It was the power of his character which elicited faith in people.

We also see the critical role of character in Matt. 5-7.  This Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ summary of the kind of character it takes to be salt and light.  Jesus understands that it is not enough to tell good news, we must be good news.  The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ description of the kind of character we must have in order to become salt and light.  Imagine the impact a church could have in this changing culture if it focused on being a Sermon on the Mount community.  In my book Rebuilding Relationships I focus on this call.

Jesus’ compassion in Matt. 8-9 reminds us that being salt and light is not simply about telling good news but about being good news.  Jesus heals, restores, and serves people in these two chapters.  His example reminds us of the power of being good news.  It shows the impact of character.  In a non-Christian and Postmodern culture where people may not be interested in what we say to them, they will be open to what we do for them.  When we are good news, people respond better when we tell good news.  In this changing culture, we need to focus once again on imitating Christ’s character and move from simply telling good news to being good news.

Third, in Matt. 8-9 Jesus demonstrates closeness. Jesus leaves the safety of the mountain where he’s gathered for the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and draws closer in Matt. 8-9 to those who most need his salt and light.  In Matt. 8:1-15 Jesus draws close to three people: a leper, a centurion, and a Jewish woman.  A scholar named Frederick Dale Bruner suggests that we can picture these three people—a leper, a centurion, and a Jewish woman—in terms of how far each is from the center of the temple in Jerusalem.[9]  As we consider the temple in Jerusalem, we can imagine concentric circles.  

• At the center is the Holy of Holies, the place where God resided.  There, only one person, a Jewish male, could enter one time each year. 
• Next is the Holy Place, a space where only Jewish males could enter. 
• Next is the Court of Women.  Women were welcome in this space, but could go no closer. 
• Then, there is the Court of Gentiles, the only place in the temple where Gentiles were permitted. 
• Finally, there is Jerusalem and then outside Jerusalem. 

Bruner suggests we can imagine Jesus being at the center, the Holy of Holies—after all, he is God—and each of these three people—the woman, the centurion, and the leper, being at various distances from that center.  But Jesus leaves the Mount and draws close to each of these three—people believed to be successively farther and farther from God.  Jesus practices closeness.

But because many of our churches originated in a Christian and Modern culture, we’ve tended to rely on a certain way of being salt and light called “attractional” or invitational.[10]   Here’s what “attractional” outreach looks like:

• “Drawing in”—the goal is to draw in as many as possible from the outside world;
• “Starting where we feel at home”—outreach begins by getting outsiders to come to the place we feel at home;
• “Seating”—the goal is to fill as many seats in the church building as possible;
• “Come to us”—we ask those in need to come to us for help;
• “How many people come to our church services?”—this is one way churches measure success.  They count the number of people who come to church services.

There are examples of attractional ministry in Scripture.  For example, in John 4 a woman who has met Jesus at a well outside of town invites her fellow towns-folk to “come and see” this Jesus.  In addition, if a church is healthy, it will be naturally attractive.  Some attractional outreach is still effective.  But in our post-Christian and postmodern culture, there will be some who will not be attracted to Christian events.

That’s why we need to supplement our “attractional” outreach with “missional” outreach:[11] 

• Attractional outreach is drawing in—missional outreach is sending out. 
• Attractional outreach is starting where we feel at home—missional outreach is starting where they feel at home.  It is Christians leaving their “turf” and going to places where non Christians feel at home;
• Attractional outreach is seating—missional outreach is sending.  The goal is to empty as many seats as possible by sending Christians into the lives of non Christians;
• Attractional outreach is come to us—missional outreach is go to them;
• Attractional outreach asks “How many people come to our church services?”  Missional outreach asks “How many people does our church serve?”

Just like Jesus, we cannot remain on our Sermon on the Mount and just invite people to come to us for what they need.  We have to leave that Mount and go to them.  Jesus’ example calls us to shift from our attractional strategies in which we tell people in our community “if you need salt and light, come to us and we’ll give it to you” to a more missional practice in which we tell our community “since you need salt and light, we’ll go to you.”  If we want to be salt and light, we’ll need to practice more closeness: a move from attractional to missional.  We’ll need to learn to spend time where non Christians are.  We need to get out of our Christian ghettos and rub shoulders once again with the irreligious.

This practice ultimately calls us to move from a focus on evangelistic programs with canned speeches and answers to a greater reliance upon people:  relationships and learning to be salt and light within the context of friendships.  In this changing culture, we need to focus once again on imitating Christ’s closeness and getting involved in the lives of people far from God, moving from attractional to missional and from programs to real people.

Fourth, in Matt. 8-9 Jesus demonstrates conversation.  Jesus shares the story of the kingdom.  Throughout Matt. 8-9 there are references to Jesus’ preaching and to the power of his word:

• In Matt. 8:13 Jesus speaks and a paralyzed servant is healed.
• In Matt. 8:16 Jesus drives out spirits with a word…
• In Matt. 8:32, Jesus commands “Go!” and demons flee from two men.
• In Matt. 9:1-8 Jesus’ words bring healing and forgiveness.
• And in Matt. 9:35 Matthew writes this summary statement: Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom…

Thus, one thing Jesus demonstrates in this section is the practice of conversation.  We learn that being salt and light involves telling good news.  In fact, when Jesus sends us out in Matt. 10 he says, As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’” (Matt. 10:7 TNIV).  One of the ways we act as salt and light is through conversation: telling the good news about Jesus.

Jesus’ example calls us to reconsider how we tell the story of the kingdom in this new culture.  Because of our legacy in a Modern and Christian culture, we’ve tended to focus on sharing pixels, very small pieces of the story of the kingdom.  We could assume that people already had the big picture in their heads and just needed guidance on some of the details.  But now in this non-Christian and Postmodern culture in which some know nothing at all of the Christian story, we’ll have to focus again on sharing the image, the big picture of the Bible.  Through this ancient yet new wineskin, we too can have a revolutionary impact on people around us.  On my website, www.chrisaltrock.com, under the Story button, I provide some examples of how to share the story, how to share the whole image rather than just the small pixels.

Finally, Jesus’ demonstrates the importance of community.  In Matt. 10 Jesus sent disciples, not a disciple.  He sent a community.  Mission was to be done in community.  And these disciples were to invite new people into a community.  They were not merely inviting people to Jesus.  They were inviting people into Jesus’ community.

This calls for a revolution from “me” to “we.”  Mission is not just about “me.”  It’s about “we.”  It’s not something “I” do.  It’s something “we” do together.  The Modern world with its individualism and optimistic view of humanity tended to focus on outreach that was individual and done 1 on 1.  But the postmodern world, with its hunger for relationships and its awareness of the need we have for each other, will be best reached by community.

At Highland we are attempting to practice this revolution by means of an emphasis we call “Thru You.”  Let me briefly walk you our brochure…

[2] Ben Witherington III, Matthew Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 200.

[3] Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins (Orbis, 2005), 223.

[4] Witherington, 201.

[5] Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1999), 301.

[6]  “U. S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008” The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, http://religions.pewforum.org/. 

[7] Michael Goheen & Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads (Baker Academic, 2008), 23.

[8] Barbara Kingsolver, The Poisonwood Bible (HarperPerennial, 1999).

[9] Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew Volume 1: The Christbook (Word, 1987), 299-310.

[10] Based on postings by Steve Hays in response to “Attractional vs Missional Services” http://mattstone.blogs.com; “What is a Missional Church?” Friend of Missional http://www.friendofmissional.org; Chad Hall “Missional:Possible” Leadership (Winter 2007), http://www.christianitytoday.com; Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch The Shaping of Things to Come (Hendrickson, 2003).

[11] Hays etc.

“Spiritual but not religious” seems to capture the tension many people feel.  On the one hand, we are attracted to the spiritual, to God, to Jesus, to prayer and to the transcendent.  On the other hand, we are fed up the failings of religious institutions and religious people.

We’ve been exploring this tension as it is seen in Mark’s Gospel.  Mark focuses on ten conflicts between Jesus and the religion of his day.  Ten times Jesus and religious leaders spar, box, or debate.  In these conflicts we learn a lot about what it means to follow Jesus rather than just be religious.

Conflict #2 takes place along a lake shore: 13He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.  15And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mk. 2:13-17 ESV).

As we heard last Sunday, Jesus has been at Peter’s home in Capernaum.  There he healed a man who was paralyzed.  This Sunday Jesus leaves Peter’s house and according to verse 13, “went out again beside the sea.”  The word “sea” refers to a large lake called “the Sea of Galilee.”  It was called the “Sea of Galilee” because is sat near the province of Galilee.  This large lake lies in the lower section of the Jordan Valley amidst a range of mountains.  In the time of the New Testament the Sea of Galilee was surrounded by towns like Capernaum, Bethsaida, Korazin, Magdala, and Tiberias.^[ii] Here is a photo of Capernaum nestled on the north-western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus leaves Capernaum and “went out again beside the sea.”  This is not Jesus’ first visit to the popular lake.  Earlier in Mk. 1:16 Jesus was at this lake when he called Simon and Andrew and James and John and urged them to follow him.   The large lake has been place of important ministry for Jesus.

During this visit we hear in verse 13 that “all the crowd was coming to him.”  This is probably the same crowd which had earlier gathered around Jesus at Peter’s house and in front of whom Jesus healed the paralytic.  Afterwards, Mark tells us in Mk. 2:12, “they were all amazed and glorified God saying, ‘We never saw anything like this!’”  That amazed crowd cannot get enough of Jesus.  So they follow Jesus out of Capernaum to the shore of the Sea of Galilee.

But somewhere along the shore, Jesus stops teaching this crowd and starts talking to just one person: 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.”  Levi is also known as Matthew, one of the original twelve disciples, one of the apostles, and the author of the Gospel According to Matthew.  Jesus looks beyond the crowd and singles out this one person: Levi.

Levi, Mark tells us, is “sitting at the tax booth.”  If we are to understand anything from this story we must get straight in our minds what Mark means when he tells us that Levi was “sitting at the tax booth.”  A person who sits at a “tax booth” was called a “tax collector.”   Levi’s tax booth probably sits on a commercial road that runs along the shore.  Here he collects taxes on goods being transported on that road.[iii]

• That job, in and of itself, earned Levi a certain bad reputation.  After all, who likes the person who collects your taxes?
• In addition, being a “tax collector” meant that you worked for the hated imperial power of Rome and the equally hated local dictator, Herod.  That is, tax collectors were despised because their boss was a disliked dictator and their boss’ boss was a maligned Caesar.
• Further, tax collectors were considered to be greedy, dishonest and immoral. ^[iv] Jewish Rabbis would not allow tax collectors to appear as witnesses in a court.  In this regard, they were on the same level as gamblers, robbers, shepherds, and slaves.  Even the family of the tax collector was considered disreputable and ungodly.^[v]
• Finally, tax collectors were ceremonially unclean because, in their line of work they had to be in contact with non-Jewish people.^[vi] Even the handle of a tax collector’s staff was considered unclean.  And an entire house could become unclean if a tax collector entered.^[vii]

It is important for us not to romanticize Levi the tax collector.  He’s not just a good ol boy.  He’s not a likeable red-neck.  In modern terms, Levi is a…

• BP oil executive who mishandles the worst oil spill in history.
• a university sports coach whose cheating is discovered by the NCAA and results in heavy fines for the university.
• a white supremacist who shoots police officers dead after they pull him over.
• the head of a Mexican drug cartel responsible for record murders in border towns.
• a dead beat dad who leaves his family and rarely sends support.
• a pimp of several prostitutes in downtown Memphis.
• a television minister who uses money contributed by church members to support a lavish lifestyle. Levi is all of these.

Later, in verse 15, tax collectors are lumped together with “sinners.”  The word “sinners” is used four times in this story.  It literally means “not hitting” or “missing.”[viii] “Sinners” are people who are “off target,” “off base,” “off course,” and “off track.”  And since tax collectors are lumped together with “sinners” in this story, we can appropriately apply that label to tax collectors as well.  Of all sinners, Levi the tax collector was considered to be a human being who was grossly “off target.”  He had missed everything that was important about being a Jew, about being a man, and about being a human.  Levi was “off-target.”

And we’re about to see that one of the major ways in which Jesus and religion differ is how they deal with off-target people. If you want to find out quickly whether a group or a person is just religious or really following Jesus, all you have to do is look at how they deal with off-target people.

Three surprises greet us as Jesus meets this off-target man named Levi:

• The first surprise comes when Jesus says, “Follow me.”  Jesus invites an off-target man to follow him. Jesus tells a man on the spiritual most-excluded list to “Follow me.”  Jesus does not say, “Clean up your life, then follow me.”  Jesus does not say, “Go get a seminary degree, then follow me.”  Jesus does not say, “Get into a tax-collectors-anonymous group, work the program, and then follow me.”  He simply says, “Follow me.”
• The second surprise is this: And he rose and followed him.  This off-target tax collector named Levi follows Jesus. Not only must the crowd be speechless when Jesus says to Levi, “Follow me.”  But they must be picking their chins off the floor when Levi gets up from his chair, walks out of the booth, and follows Jesus.  Not only is it unfathomable that Jesus would recruit someone like Levi.  It is also unfathomable that someone like Levi would actually follow Jesus.
• The third surprise comes next: And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. The only party Levi can get an invitation to in Capernaum is one that he throws.  And the only kind of people willing to come to a party hosted by one of the most excluded people in town are people equally excluded: other tax collectors and sinners.  And what is shocking is many of these sinners and tax collectors were also following Jesus.  Mark notes, “for there were many who followed him.”  Mark is saying that there were many tax collectors and sinners who followed Jesus.  Not only has Jesus reached out to one outcast named Levi.  But now it seems that every outcast in town is eating with Jesus and following Jesus.

The religious leaders have also shown up at this party.  Not as invited guests.  Not as willing followers.  They’ve shown up as spiritual paparazzi, as tabloid journalists.  They are here to get some dirt on Jesus.  It’s a wonder, given the fact that all these tax collectors and sinners would have made Levi’s house very unclean, that these religious leaders can even get close enough to Levi’s house to see what’s going on.  We can imagine them standing outside, peering in through the open door, holding their noses from the unclean stench, and blocking their eyes from the moral filth.  Here’s how the New Living Translation puts it: 16 But when the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with such scum?” Why would someone claiming to be a religious leader attract people like this?  It doesn’t make any sense.

In reply Jesus uses an ancient proverb: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” In other words, a doctor is attracted to one kind of person: the sick.  A doctor attracts one kind of person: the sick.  Similarly, Jesus was attracted to one kind of person: the sick, those who are “sinners.”  Correspondingly, Jesus is attracting one kind of person: the sick, those who are “sinners.”

And in that closing proverb we begin to see some of the central differences between just being religious and really following Jesus.  First, we see that Jesus is drawn toward the off-target.  But the religious leaders are driven from the off-target. The very ones religion runs from are the ones Jesus runs to.  Jesus is drawn toward the off-target.  The religious leaders are driven from the off-target.

Religion functions within what is called a “Bounded Set.” A bounded set is one in which there is a clear and hard boundary between those who belong and those who do not.  The boundary is there to keep the off-target people out.  If you want to be “in,” if you want to cross that boundary, you cannot be off-target.  You have to get your life together.  You have to look right, speak right, and act right.  Once you are right, then you can cross the boundary.  Religion, as a bounded set, is driven away from the off-target.  The boundary exists to keep the off-target people away.

Jesus, however, functions within what is called a “Centered Set.”  In a centered set, there is not a hard and fast boundary defining who is in and who is not in.  Instead, there is a central set of values, and people are seen as either closer to or farther from those values.  Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch suggest that the difference between the bounded set and the centered set is the difference between fences and wells.[ix] In some farming communities, farmers might build fences around their property to keep their livestock in and the livestock of neighboring farms out.  But in rural communities where farms might cover very large areas, fencing becomes impractical.  So, the farmer sinks a bore and creates a well.  It is assumed that the livestock, though they may still stray, will not roam far from the well, lest they die.  In Jesus’ way of life, Jesus is the well.  Jesus places himself at the center.  And he invites all to drink.  He invites all to follow.  Especially the off-target.  Jesus doesn’t try to keep the off-target away.  Instead he invites them to come and drink.

A second-century Greek philosopher named Celsus is said to have made this speech regarding the Christians in his day:[x] Those who summon people to the other mysteries [i.e. other religions] make this preliminary proclamation: “Whosoever has pure hands and a wise tongue.” And again, others say, “Whosoever is pure from all defilement, and whose soul knows nothing of evil, and who has lived well and righteously.” Such are the preliminary exhortations of those who promise purification from sins.  But let us hear what folk these Christians call. “Whosoever is a sinner,” they say. “Whosoever is unwise, whosoever is a child, and, in a word, whosoever is a wretch, the kingdom of God will receive him.” Do you not say that a sinner is he who is dishonest, a thief, a burglar, a poisoner, a sacrilegious fellow, and a grave-robber? What others would a robber invite and call? Why on earth this preference for sinners? Living in the second-century Celsus says that others religions called only people with pure hands and wise tongues, those pure from all defilement, and those who have lived well and righteously.  Only those kinds of people were invited to join other ancient religions.  But Christians called sinners, the wretched, the dishonest, and the thief.  They actually had a preference for sinners.  And where did they learn that?  They learned it from Jesus.

But not only is Jesus drawn toward the off-target.  The off-target are drawn toward Jesus.  The off-target people actually like Jesus.  They want to be around Jesus.  They want to eat and drink with Jesus.  They’ll even leave lucrative careers to be with Jesus.  And with religion, it’s just the opposite.  Not only is religion driven from the off-target.  But the off-target are driven from religion.  The off-target people want nothing to do with religion.  They are turned off by the religious.

And this is both comforting and challenging. For those of you who see yourself as off-target, it’s comforting.  Maybe you’ve tried religion, but you’ve been put off by it.  You’ve been burned by it.  Have you tried Jesus?  Chances are you’ll love him.  Some of the most off-target and religiously suspicious people in Jesus’ day ended up loving Jesus.  Give up on religion.  And give Jesus a try.  He’s drawn to people like you.  I think you’ll be drawn to him.

But the challenge comes for the rest of us.  The off-target were drawn toward Jesus.  But are they drawn toward us?  How many off-target people love to hang out with you?  Are off-target people drawn to you like they were to Jesus?  Or are they driven away from you like they were from religion?  And what about us as a church?  Are we the kind of community to which off-target people are drawn?  Are we as a church a bounded set or a centered set?  Do we have an implicit list of expectations that says before you worship here, before you Sunday-School here, before you get help here, you’ve got to have everything fixed in your life?  Or, are we are a centered set where what matters most is the Jesus who is in the center?  Do we, like Jesus, invite all, especially the off-target to come and drink from his well?

Where does this start?  It starts where it did for Jesus—at a table.  That’s why we’ve designated this week—June 27-July 3 as Divine Dinners.  We want to encourage you to find a Levi and invite him/her into your home for a meal.  You don’t need to worry about baptizing him/her.  You don’t need to worry about fixing him/her.  Just find a Levi this week.  And invite him/her to a meal.

^[ii] Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (1173). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[iii] Robert Gundry, Mark, (Eerdmans, 1993), 127.

^[iv] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Mk 2:13–17). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[v] . Vol. 8: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (102–103). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

^[vi] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Mk 2:13–17). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[vii] . Vol. 8: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (101). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[viii] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

[ix] Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come (Hendrickson, 2003), 47.

[x] www.preachingtoday.com

In his book “After You Believe” N. T. Wright describes the character-culture into which Jesus and Paul entered.  It was dominated by Aristotle “

Thus, it was common to believe the following:

Question-What is the goal of human life?  Answer-Happiness. 

Question-What enables you to arrive at that goal?  Answer-Character/Virtue. 

Question-What enables you to develop character/virtue?  Answer-Practice/Training.

The Goal

N. T. Wright states that “For Aristotle, the goal was the ideal of a fully flourishing human being…This particular goal, for which Aristotle used the word eudaimonia, is sometimes called “happiness,” but Aristotle meant it in a technical sense that is actually closer to our idea of “flourishing.”“

The Steps Toward the Goal

N. T. Wright argues that “The steps toward that goal, for Aristotle and his followers, were the strengths of character which, when developed, contributed toward the gradual making of a flourishing human being…Aristotle’s word for such a strength was aret; later Latin writers used the word virtus, from which of course we get “virtue.”…For Aristotle—and for the tradition which developed after him and formed the world of moral discourse at the time when early Christianity was growing, spreading, and teaching a new way of life—there were four principal virtues: courage, justice, prudence, and temperance…That is why those four are often called the “cardinal virtues”: cardo in Latin means “hinge”…The “cardinal virtues” are not the only virtues. But, Aristotle proposed, they are the central ones, and all the others depend on them.”

The Process

Finally, N. T. Wright shows that “The way to attain eudaimonia, Aristotle thought, was by practicing these strengths, just as a soccer player undergoes training for all the different muscles of the body and practices all the various ball skills that will be needed.”

Wright shows that while Jesus and Paul were familiar with with this belief system, and even spoke using its categories, the Christian faith offered a radical alternative: “Aristotle glimpsed a goal of human flourishing; so did Jesus, Paul, and the rest. But Jesus’s vision of that goal was larger and richer, taking in the whole world, and putting humans not as lonely individuals developing their own moral status but as glad citizens of God’s coming kingdom. Aristotle saw that to get to the goal of a genuinely human life one should develop the moral strengths he called virtues. Jesus and his first followers, not least Paul, said something similar. But their vision of the moral strengths, corresponding to their different vision of the goal, highlighted qualities Aristotle didn’t rate highly (love, kindness, forgiveness, and so on) and included at least one—humility—for which the ancient pagan world (and for that matter the modern pagan world) had no use at all…Aristotle saw that the ultimate aim was to become the kind of character who would be able to act in the right way automatically, by the force of long training of habit. Jesus and Paul agreed; but they proposed a very different way by which the relevant habits were to be learned and practiced.”

Here are the lists they consulted:

Based on these studies, Church Relevance put together a list of the Top Ten churches which consistently experienced high levels of growth over this 6 year period (I’ve inserted the founding date of each church (based on the church’s website)):

Some brief comments:

I wasn’t even aware of the existence of 7 of the 10.  How about you?  There are many churches which receive far more media attention than these.  Yet these are the ones consistently demonstrating growth in a changing American culture.  There are churches far larger than these.  Yet these are the ones truly growing.  The list reminded me how isolated I can become.  Perhaps it’s time for me widen my circles and see what God is doing in these places. 

All of these churches are 30 years old or younger.  There is no church above 30 on the list.  Why does age seem to hinder consistent and significant growth?  What can older churches (the church I preach for is 80+) learn from this list?  What are younger churches able to do that can translate to older churches?

First, character solves the question of “What am I here for?”  It defines what we do after we believe and before we reach heaven:

How about you?  Why does Christian character matter?

Some trust in their degrees.  I trust in you.

Some trust in their skill.  I trust in you.

Some trust in their experience.  I trust in you.

Some trust in their wisdom.  I trust in you.

So please answer when I call.  Send help when I ask. 

For I trust in you.

[image]

65% rarely or never pray with others.

65% rarely or never attend worship services.

 67% don’t read the Bible or sacred texts.

If the trends continue, “the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships,” says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources.

What’s your reaction?  Why is this happening?  What can be done about it?