Anne Rice is a best-selling author of gothic and religious-themed novels. Her books have sold nearly 100 million copies, making her one of the most widely read authors in modern history.  As a child, Rice had connections with the Catholic Church.  As she grew older, however, she left that church.  She also left the Christian faith in general.  Rice became so removed from all religious faith that she eventually described herself as an atheist.  In 1998, however, Rice returned to the Christian faith and to the Catholic Church.  She announced she would now use her life and her writing to glorify God.  It was a surprising conversion, one that shocked many of Rice’s readers.  But twelve years later, on July 29, 2010, Rice publicly renounced her affiliation with the Catholic church.  Yet she steadfastly proclaimed her commitment to Christ.  Here is her announcement from her Facebook page: “For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.“  Rice followed that post with this one a few hours later:  “My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

Rice was driven from Christianity by Christian doctrine.  She could not embrace Christian doctrines regarding things like homosexuality and abortion.  But she was also driven from Christianity by Christian character.  She found Christians to be “quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous.”  There was something about the way Christians behaved which led Rice to turn her back on Christianity.  Her story shows that the wrong Christian character keeps people from the Christian faith.   

A new study from the Barna Group found that many in the United States have had an experience similar to Rice’s.[i] The study found that about 1 out of every 8 adults in this country who used to be Christian, Protestant or Catholic now report being atheist, agnostic or a member of a non Christian faith.  When asked why they left Christianity, some of the common reasons given were the following: feeling disillusioned with church; feeling the church is hypocritical; having negative experiences in churches; and feeling the church is too authoritarian.  The wrong Christian character keeps people from the Christian faith.

And this is particularly troubling because that wrong Christian character is keeping people from something that is tremendously valuable.  Paul’s first letter to Christians in the ancient city of Thessalonica reveals just how valuable the Christian faith can be.

1 Thessalonians is probably the earliest letter in the New Testament.  This letter was written before any of the Gospels.  It is our first look into what happened when people were first introduced to the Christian faith.  Paul, Silas and Timothy visited this city during what is called Paul’s second missionary journey.  Paul travelled much of the world of his day as a missionary.  During his second major road trip, he stopped in Thessalonica with his coworkers Silas and Timothy.  Luke records their visit in Acts 17.

Thessalonica was located on a main highway which ran from east to west.  It also had a good harbor.  And this location on land and water routes made it a major trade and distribution center—an ancient Memphis.  It was the largest and most important city in Macedonia.  As the capital, Thessalonica had temples of Roma and of the Roman emperor.[ii] It’s possible that citizens in Thessalonica were required to pledge an oath of loyalty to Caesar and to Rome.  An example of this oath was found in another ancient city.  The oath read as follows: “I swear…that I will support Caesar Augustus, his children and descendants throughout my life in word, deed and thought…that in whatsoever concerns them I will spare neither body nor soul nor life nor children…that whenever I see or hear of anything being said, planned or done against them I will report it…and whomever they regard as enemies I will attack and pursue with arms and the sword by land and by sea…”[iii] Luke tells us that when Paul started preaching in this city that was filled with people who had sworn loyalty to Caesar, there was a riot.  Paul was accused of treason and sedition against Caesar and Rome.  As a result, Paul and his friends were run out of town.

But while they were in Thessalonica, Paul and his friends were accused, in Luke’s words, of turning “the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).  Spiritually speaking, that’s just what they did.  The Thessalonians who came to believe in Jesus went through the greatest turn-around they had ever experienced.  Their lives were turned spiritually upside down by Paul’s Jesus.  Paul puts it this way in 1 Thess. 1:9: you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.  The Thessalonians completely rejected the empty spiritual beliefs and practices taught them by their parents and grandparents and fully embraced the truth about God found in Jesus.  They finally found a God worth believing in and discovered the joy of grace and mercy.  They were ushered into a world in which they had purpose and meaning and a connection to the God who created it all.

Paul’s experience in Thessalonica reveals that the Christian faith turns lives around. Though Paul was run out of town and many rejected the Christian way, when these Thessalonians embraced the good news their lives were changed forever.  They were turned around 180 degrees.

The truth is that in your workplace, in your school, in your neighborhood, and right here at Highland there are people just like the Thessalonians.  They’ve accepted a wrong view of life, a wrong view of the world, and a wrong view of faith given to them by their family, their friends, their church, or their culture.  They may not be worshipping idols, but they’ve devoted their lives to pursuits that will leave them empty and purposeless.  And the Christian faith still has the power to turn their lives around.  The Christian faith still has the power to turn this world upside down.  There is nothing more valuable than this Christian faith and its amazing ability to turn lives around.

But the question is how?  That’s what we are taking up in this four-part series.  We’re learning four practices from Paul for sharing this faith so that it can turn lives around today.  This morning we are going to tackle the difficult dilemma of character.  One the one hand the wrong Christian character keeps some from the Christian faith.  On the other hand, the Christian faith still has the power to turn lives around.  What do we do?

Here’s what Paul did: 3For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. 5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed— God is witness. 6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. (1 Thess. 2:3-6 ESV)

Traveling philosophers and traveling orators were common in the Roman Empire in Paul’s day. They moved from place to place, entertaining people and seeking a following.  Their primary motives were fame and fortune.^[iv] They were teachers and eloquent speakers who would draw large crowds and from these crowds they would gain wealth and notoriety.  They were often ill thought of.

What then do you think the Thessalonians thought of Paul, Silas, and Timothy when they strode into town and started speaking?  The Thessalonians assumed this was another trio out to attract a following and gain fame. They assumed this was another trio full of hot air and slight-of-hand.  They assumed this trio was just another group of hucksters and entertainers looking for a quick buck.

We American Christians are not the first ones who have had a character gap to bridge in order to gain a hearing.  Paul faced what we face: people who are fiercely skeptical because they assume, based on past experiences with similar people, that we have ulterior motives, that we aren’t who we claim to be, that we are here just to use people to get something we want.

Thus Paul draws a specific contrast between how they acted and how the run of the mill orators and philosophers of the day acted.  Paul refers to his message, his motivation, and his method.^[v] All three were expressions of a very different kind of character than people in Thessalonica were used to.

• First, the message.  Paul says in vs. 3 that their “appeal” or message does not spring from error.  This word “error” refers to something that strays from what is known to be true about God and about life. ^[vi] Paul did not change his message for his audience.  He didn’t come to Thessalonica to say whatever people wanted to hear.  Other traveling philosophers and orators may have done that.  But not Paul.  His character was different.  His message had no error.
• Second, the motivation.  Paul says in vs. 3 that their message did not spring from impurity.  The word “impurity” refers to moral uncleanness or moral impurity.^[vii] There was nothing morally questionable driving Paul’s preaching in Thessalonica.  More specifically, Paul mentions in vs. 4 that he did not speak to please man.  His goal was not to gain a large following.  Further, Paul writes in vs. 6 that he didn’t seek glory from people.  He didn’t come to make a name for himself.  Ancient travelling philosophers and orators may have done this.  But not Paul.  His character was different.  No impurity.  No people-pleasing.  No glory seeking.
• Finally, the method.  Paul writes in vs. 3 that he did not come with any attempt to deceive.  The word “deceive” literally refers to something used for catching.^[viii] It can refer to a decoy.^[ix] A decoy is something that looks like a duck or a deer, but once you get up close you realize it is not what it appears to be.  Paul is saying that he was no decoy.  He was no fake.  He didn’t look like a sincere follower of Jesus who, upon closer inspection, was not what he appeared to be.  Further, Paul says in vs. 5 that he didn’t come with any pretext for greed. This word “pretext” refers to a “cloak” used to hide something.^[x] Paul is saying that his teaching and ministry were not a cloak hiding the fact that all he really wanted was their money.  Ancient philosophers and orators may have used these kinds of methods.  But not Paul.  His character was different.  No attempt to deceive.  No pretext for greed.

Paul knew that he operated within a culture in which the wrong character of orators and philosophers had caused people to look upon any teacher with skepticism and distrust.  Paul knew that this could easily lead people to reject what he wanted to teach about Christ.  Thus Paul focused on demonstrating the most Christ-like character possible.  Paul understood that true Christian character can draw people to the Christian faith. By his own conduct, Paul could be a living example of the kind of turn-around the Christian faith can provide.  He could become a living sample of the Christian faith which allowed the Thessalonians to taste and see how good Christ was.

Elsewhere Paul shows just how much attention he gave to character:

• You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (1 Thess. 1:5 ESV)
• You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you… (1 Thess. 2:10 ESV)

Paul understood that true Christian character can draw people to the Christian faith.  For that reason he was deeply intentional about living out a Christ-like character before those to whom he preached.

The Christian faith is still able to radically turn lives around.  But the way for us to help that happen is not through a tested program or a canned strategy.  It’s not going to happen when we get the “professionals”—the staff and elders—out there converting people.  It’s going to happen when every one of us understands the critical impact of Christian character and commits to living among outsiders with true Christ-like character.  If we want people to hear the good news, every one of us must first become that good news.

That is why in November we are holding what we call “Go MAD Sunday.”  “MAD” stands for “Make A Difference.”  We’ll have an abbreviated worship service that Sunday—no Sunday School—and then we’ll be dismissed to go and do some act of service to some person in this area.  Reach Groups, Sunday School classes, Huddles and individuals will be challenged to leave this building and immediately do some act of service and show some kindness to a neighbor, a coworker, a poor family, a stranger, or a classmate.  Why?  Because we want to practice being good news.  We want to demonstrate the right Christian character.  We want to help people see that what they may have thought about Christians is wrong.  We want to live out Christian character so that we might then speak out regarding the Christian gospel.

Author Michael Green shares this story to remind us of the impact of our actions: [xi] I read about a missionary candidate in language school. The very first day of class the teacher entered the room and, without saying a word, walked down every row of students. Finally, still without saying a word, she walked out of the room again. Then she came back and addressed the class. “Did you notice anything special about me?” she asked.   Nobody could think of anything in particular. One student finally raised her hand. “I noticed that you had on a very lovely perfume,” she said. The class chuckled.  But the teacher said, “That was exactly the point. [It] will be a long time before any of you will be able to speak Chinese well enough to share the gospel with anyone in China. But even before you are able to do that, you can minister the sweet fragrance of Christ to these people by the quality of your lives.” Our character becomes the perfume of Christ.  The sweet fragrance of good, honest, caring, and kind conduct among non Christians becomes the aroma which draws them to Christ himself.

Joe Stowell writes of this experience at a Starbucks:[xii] The guy in front of me was in a tense argument with the clerk. In loud and no uncertain terms, the customer was complaining that all he wanted was the copy of the New York Times that he was holding in one hand while he was waving a fifty-dollar bill in the other. The fight was over the fact that the clerk did not have enough change yet to break the fifty-dollar bill, which made it impossible for him to sell the paper.  It dawned on me that this was an early morning opportunity to commit one intentional act of [goodness]…So I said to the clerk, “Hey, put the paper on my bill; I’ll buy it for him.” This immediately defused the tension, and the grateful New York Times guy walked away saying, “Thanks a lot. All I have is yours!” Which evidently did not include the fifty-dollar bill.  To my surprise, when the barista handed me my coffee, he said, “Mister, that was a really nice thing for you to do. This world would be a lot better place to live if more people were like you.”…His comments caught me totally off guard, and I knew that I could say something at that point that would point the glory upward…but nothing came…As I was walking down the sidewalk, it came to me. I should have said, “Well, this world would not be a better place if more people were like me. But it would be a better place if more people were like Jesus, because he taught me how to do that.” Your character can help people realize just how good this world could be if more people followed Jesus.  True Christian character can draw people to the Christian faith.

Where does it all begin?  It starts with what I’m calling “My Turn.”  My Turn is your chance to put this message into action.  Take some time today or this week to prayerfully address the following: Because I believe that the wrong character turns people from the Christian faith and the right character draws people to the Christian faith, I will 1) pray each day this week for God to transform this character flaw________________; and 2) demonstrate Christlike love and kindness to this person who may be far from God ____________________ in this way __________________.

[ii] Christopher R. Hutson, “1 Thessalonians” in The Transforming Word edited by Mark Hamilton (ACU Press, 2009), 979.

[iii] Ben Witherington III 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Eerdmans, 2006), 7.

^[iv] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1 Th 2:6). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[v] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1 Th 2:3). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[vi] Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). Vol. 1: A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (58). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

^[vii] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (381). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

^[viii] Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (208). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

^[ix] Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

^[x] Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). Vol. 1: A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (62). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[xi] Michael Green, in Alice Gray’s (editor) Stories for a Faithful Heart (Multnomah, 2004), 95.

[xii] Joe Stowell, Jesus Nation (Tyndale, 2009), 80-81.

When we stop seeking you, God, we start serving ourselves.

I’ve seen it again and again.  Person after person marginalizes you.  And before long, they marginalize those around them.

We simply do not love neighbor when we do not first love you.

When we write you out of the Story everyone suffers.

Especially you.

[image]

Prayer as Active Asking

Several days ago the small group which my family and I attend discussed the prayer-life of Jesus.  After a lengthy conversation, several of us confessed our desire to spend more time in prayer—like Jesus.  But one group member spoke for more than just herself when she said, “But honestly, I don’t know what I would do if I spent more time in prayer.  I’m not sure what else I would say.  I’d run out of things to pray about.”  She and we wanted to spend more time in prayer.  But we were confused about how we’d actually spend that time.

This is most likely a symptom of a particular view of prayer.  For many of us prayer primarily involves what I’ll call Active Asking.  Prayer, for most of us, is an active, not passive, activity.  It involves us physically doing something.  Our hands fold.  Our mouths open.  Our tongues move.  And our minds cycle through the list of needs, requests, issues, and topics.  It is an active asking.

Thus, when it comes to increasing the amount of time we spend in prayer, the only increase we can imagine is an increase in that activity and that asking.  We’ll need to find more things to request, more people to intercede for, more topics of conversation to process with God, and more issues requiring his divine attention.  In other words, if we want to increase our prayer time we’ll need to increase our prayer list.

Not that this is bad.  One thing that becomes clear by praying through the Psalms, the prayers of Jesus, the prayers of Paul, and the petitions of others in Scripture is that there are many things on the prayer lists of these godly men and women which are not on our prayer lists.  We ought to spend more of our time praying about the things which show up on their prayers lists.

But there is a limit to the length of one’s prayer list.  There is a limit to this side of prayer.  Prayer, in Scripture, was never intended to solely be Active Asking.  There is an entirely different side to prayer.  It is a side of prayer new to many of us.  Yet it is a side which opens grand new experiences with God and bold new opportunities in prayer.

Psalms and the Other Side of Prayer

This other side of prayer begins to peek out at us when we read through portions of the Psalms.  The Psalms are certainly filled with Active Asking.  There are a lot of prayer lists in the Psalms.  But there’s something else there.  Something that may escape our notice because it is quiet and unassuming.  At first glance, it doesn’t even appear to be prayer.

One of the things which those praying in the Psalms emphasize is the importance of being quiet and still (ESV):

• Psalm 4:4 – Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.
• Psalm 23:2 – He makes me lie down in green pastures.  He leads me beside still waters.
• Psalm 37:7 – Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way, over the man who carries out evil devices!
• Psalm 46:10 – “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!”
• Psalm 62:1,5 – For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation..For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him.
• Psalm 131:1, 2 – O LORD, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.  But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.

One of the things which those who prayed the Psalms into existence emphasize is the importance of quietness and stillness.  There is a side to prayer that is less active and more passive, less doing and more being.  There is a type of prayer which involves silence and stillness. 

Silence and stillness are things which can conquer sinful anger (Ps. 4:4).  God desires to bring us to experiences of “still waters,” restful and quiet moments (Ps. 23:2).  Stillness is one of the ways in which we stop trying to take control and allow God to take control (Ps. 37:7).  It is often in quiet rest that we best come to know and experience that God is truly God (Ps. 46:10).  It is in times of silence that we find salvation and hope (Ps. 62:1,5).  And God wishes to bring us to times with him when we are like a weaned child with its mother, resting quietly in his presence (Ps. 131:1,2).

This other side of prayer is also teased out in the Psalms through the oft-repeated theme of waiting on the Lord (ESV):

• Psalm 25:3 – Indeed, none who wait for you shall be put to shame; they shall be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous.
• Psalm 25:5 – Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.
• Psalm 25:21 – May integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait for you.
• Psalm 27:14 – Wait for the LORD; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the LORD!
• Psalm 31:24 – Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the LORD!
• Psalm 33:20 – Our soul waits for the LORD; he is our help and our shield.
• Psalm 37:7 – Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way, over the man who carries out evil devices!
• Psalm 37:9 – For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land.
• Psalm 37:34 – Wait for the LORD and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on when the wicked are cut off.
• Psalm 38:15 – But for you, O LORD, do I wait; it is you, O Lord my God, who will answer.
• Psalm 39:7 – And now, O Lord, for what do I wait? My hope is in you.
• Psalm 40:1 – I waited patiently for the LORD; he inclined to me and heard my cry.
• Psalm 52:9 – I will thank you forever, because you have done it.  I will wait for your name, for it is good, in the presence of the godly.
• Psalm 62:1,5 – For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation…For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him.
• Psalm 130:5 – I wait for the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I hope.
• Psalm 130:6 – my soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning, more than watchmen for the morning.

There is a lot of waiting going on in the prayers and songs of the Psalms.  Courage comes as we wait (Ps. 27:14).  God answers as we wait (Ps. 38:15).  Hope arrives as we wait (Ps. 39:7). 

Waiting is something that is passive.  Waiting involves a lot of standing around and doing nothing.  It involves stillness.  In fact, twice a psalmist ties “waiting” and “stillness” or “silence” together:

Psalm 37:7 – Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him

Psalm 62:1,5 – For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation…For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him.

Psalm 62 is especially instructive.  David, the author, is facing significant challenges.  But in the face of these difficulties, he waits silently before God (NLT):

1 I wait quietly before God, for my victory comes from him.  2 He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress where I will never be shaken.  3 So many enemies against one man—      all of them trying to kill me.  To them I’m just a broken-down wall or a tottering fence.  4 They plan to topple me from my high position.  They delight in telling lies about me.  They praise me to my face but curse me in their hearts.

Silent and still waiting is so beneficial in the face of these challenges that David once more speaks to himself, telling himself to remain quiet before God:

 5 Let all that I am wait quietly before God, for my hope is in him.  6 He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress where I will not be shaken.  7 My victory and honor come from God alone.  He is my refuge, a rock where no enemy can reach me.

The word translated “alone” or “only” begins 5 of the verses in the Psalm.  David wants to emphasize that “only God” and “God alone” is his strength and help in difficult times.  The way he comes to understand this and express this is through still and quiet waiting.

Prayer as Restful Receiving

While many of us operate with a paradigm of prayer as “Active Asking” these Psalms point to another paradigm—prayer as “Restful Receiving.”  Here, prayer is not acting.  It is resting.  Here, prayer is not asking.  It is receiving.  Prayer becomes less something we do and more something that is done to us.  We rest in the Lord.  We are quiet and still in His presence.  We calmly wait—for knowledge of him, for action from him, for a word from him.

This type of prayer has become known as “Contemplative Prayer.”  In a nutshell, Contemplative Prayer, or what I’m calling “Restful Receiving,” is simply spending intentional time in silence before God.  It is prayer that is intentional time in silence before God.  It can be for the sole purpose of resting in God and just being with God.  It can be for the additional purpose of receiving something from God—knowledge of God, a word from God, some action of God’s. 

Restful Receiving, however, is not what we may think (or fear!).

1. It is not a relaxation exercise.[i]  The primary purpose is not to lower blood pressure or decrease stress—although those things can certainly happen.
2. It is not a mystical experience in which God appears visibly to us or audibly speaks to us.[ii]  In our stillness and quietness, God certainly could choose to appear visibly or speak audibly.  But that’s not to be expected.
3. And it is not an attempt to empty the mind.  The purpose of Eastern meditation is to empty the mind.  But the purpose of Restful Receiving is more to fill the mind—with God.[iii]

Restful Receiving is primarily spending intentional time in silence before God.  In that stillness we can receive the rest God wishes to bring and we can enjoy just “hanging out with God.”  In addition, that quietness allows us to be more receptive to something God may wish to do or to reveal.  We may receive from God a small but important word about our day, about our past, or about something God is teaching us regarding himself.

Because of biblical texts like the Psalms, for the first 16 centuries of Christianity, Restful Receiving was recognized as the goal of Christian spirituality.  It was expected that every Christian would strive to experience this type of prayer.  The Greek Church Fathers used the word “theoria” to describe an experiential knowledge of God.  “Theoria” was translated into the Latin word from which we get the English word “contemplation.”  Literally, Contemplative Prayer is experiencing God, being with God.  One ancient author called it “resting in God.”  This type of “resting in God” was understood to be the final step in a widely prescribed method of Bible reading called  “lectio divina”, or divine reading, which culminated in contemplation.  Lectio Divina consisted of three steps:

1. Meditatio – a reflective pondering of the words of a text.
2. Oratio – our spontaneous response to those reflections in spoken prayer.
3. Contemplatio – a state of resting in the presence of God.[iv] 

A couple of images may help make more sense of this type of prayer.  First, imagine a car with an engine and a radio.  We often hear the loud radio but we rarely just listen to the engine.  In fact, the only time we tend to hear the engine is when something is wrong.  The radio signifies much of our world and much of what occupies our attention in life.  The engine signifies God.  He is what ultimately drives our life.  Restful Receiving is a way of turning down the noise of the world (the radio) in order to attend to the voice and presence of God (the engine).[v]

Second, imagine a river flowing with water.  On top of the water are boats and other debris (branches of trees, some garbage, etc.).  We often tend to focus on the boats that are on the water and on the debris floating down the river.  We don’t pay that much attention to the water itself.  The boats and debris signify much of our world and much of what occupies our attention in life.  The water itself signifies God.  Restful Receiving is a way of turning our attention from the boats and debris to the river itself.[vi]

Concerning the restful element of this type of prayer Peter of Celles wrote this in the Middle Ages:[vii] “God works in us while we rest in him.  Beyond all grasping is this work of the Creator, itself creative, this rest.  For such work exceeds all rest, in its tranquility.  This rest, in its effect, shines forth as more productive than any work.” 

There is a rest of the soul that comes only through Contemplative Prayer.  And it is a rest that ultimately proves to be more productive than any work we might do.  The fruit of resting silently in God will be borne throughout the rest of the day, the week, the month, and the year.

Regarding the receiving element of Contemplative Prayer, a 4^th century Desert Father wrote these words:[viii] “Behold, my beloved, I have shown you the power of silence, how thoroughly it heals and how fully pleasing it is to God.  Wherefore I have written to you to show yourselves strong in this work you have undertaken, so that you may know it is by silence that the saints grew, that it was because of silence that the power of God dwelt in them, because of silence that the mysteries of God were known to them.”

There is spiritual growth that will only take place through silence.  There is power that becomes available only through silence.  There is knowledge and understanding that only comes through silence.

Restful Receiving Light

 There are many ways to incorporate Restful Receiving into our lives.  I’ll mention three general ways.

First, we can practice what I’ll call “Restful Receiving Light.”  We can incorporate moments of intentional silence into activities we are already doing.  For example, my drive to work takes about twenty minutes each morning.  For about ten minutes of the drive, I listen to an audio version of the One Year Bible.  For the remaining ten minutes, I just drive in silence.  It is intentional silence because I remind myself that God is present with me and it is my desire to just spend that silent time with him.  I find that I am peaceful, sharp, and God-oriented once I arrive at the church building because of those few moments of silence.

Perhaps you walk or bike or run for exercise.  Consider spending at least part of that time in silence.  No whistling.  No iPod.  Just walk, bike or run in quietness.  But be intentional.  Remind yourself that God is with you and you desire to spend that time with him.

The next time it’s your turn to wash the dishes, or make dinner, or do some other chore or household task, do it in silence.  Remind yourself that God is present and you want to be present to him.  No TV.  No radio.  Just intentional silence.

Restful Receiving Light is when we work intentional silence into things we are already doing.

Targeted Restful Receiving

Second, we can practice what I’ll call “Targeted Restful Receiving.”  In Targeted Restful Receiving we set some item before God and we silently seek to hear from God about it.  That item might be a text.  As we read the Bible, we might bring that text before God and seek to hear from God about that text.  In addition, similar to the practice of The Examen, we might bring a specific time period (e.g., the last 6 hours) before God and seek to hear from God about that time period.  Or we might bring before God a specific issue, challenge, or trouble and seek to hear from God about that issue, challenge, or trouble.  The goal is to intentionally bring something before God and then to be quiet and receptive to something he may lead us to understand regarding that item.

For example, I do this when I read the Bible early each morning.  I read the text slowly and deliberately out loud several times.  Then I am quiet.  And I seek to hear from God what part of that text does he most want me to pay attention to?  What part of that text is the most important word for me to hear that day?

If you find yourself worried or anxious about something, take a few moments to verbalize that to God, and then sit in silence.  God may communicate something to you regarding that item.

If you find yourself needing to make a decision, verbalize that to God, then sit in silence.  Be receptive to what God might communicate in that stillness.

Restful Receiving Premium

Finally, we can practice what I’ll call “Restful Receiving Premium.”  This is the most formal version of Contemplative Prayer.  This is not silent time we add to something we are already doing.  This is silent time we carve out of our schedule.  It is not silent time meant to hear from God.  It is silent time meant simply to spend in the presence of God. 

Ideally, it is 20 minutes at the beginning of the day and 20 minutes at the end of the day.  The goal is not to hear from God, but to be with God and be present to God for 20 full minutes of silence.  It takes at least this long for the average person’s mind to stop wandering and grabbing on randomly to thoughts, memories, and feelings and to arrive at a state of true interior silence.

Ideally, in this level of Contemplative Prayer, we sit with our eyes closed and are present with God in total silence.  No inspirational music playing.  No humming or singing.  Just silence.  In the silence our mind begins to wander.  Rather than try to ignore those distracting thoughts, we intentionally let go of them, as if releasing a stick and allowing it to float down the river.  As each emotion or random thought comes, we attend to it and let it go down stream.  The goal is let these go and to just exist in the presence of God.[ix]  We are not trying to solve any problems, process any feelings, or understand any text.  We are trying to intentionally spend 20 minutes in stillness with God. 

Letting God Be God

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of Contemplative Prayer or Restful Receiving is that through it we allow God to be God.  At times, prayer can be a power trip.  It can be our attempt to get God doing what we want him doing.  It can be our way of trying to persuade God to fulfill our wishes and dreams and aspirations.  But Restful Receiving turns those tables.  Restful Receiving forces us to just be quiet and let God do what he wants to do.

 This is captured beautifully in Psalm 131 (The Message):

1God, I’m not trying to rule the roost, I don’t want to be king of the mountain.  I haven’t meddled where I have no business or fantasized grandiose plans.  2 I’ve kept my feet on the ground, I’ve cultivated a quiet heart.  Like a baby content in its mother’s arms, my soul is a baby content.  3 Wait, Israel, for God. Wait with hope.  Hope now; hope always!

May we rest in God and find our soul’s content in that rest.

[image]

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline Revised Edition (Harper & Row, 1988), 20.

[iv] Keating.

[v] Mark Thibodeaux Armchair Mystic (Saint Anthony Messenger Press, 2001.

[vi] Keating.

[vii] Thomas Merton Contemplative Prayer (Image Books, 1996), 59.

[viii] Ibid., 42.

[ix] Keating.

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

On Sunday mornings this summer we are exploring similar negative feelings against religion which existed even in Jesus’ day.  In Mark’s record of Jesus, we find ten stories in which Jesus and religion butt heads.  Even for Jesus, religion sometimes gave him the creeps.  In these 10 stories, we get to the heart of the difference between just being religious and actually following Jesus.

The conflict we explored last Sunday morning took place in a synagogue.  This morning’s conflict takes place in a home: 1And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7″Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? 9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11″I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” 12And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mk. 2:1-12 ESV).

Mark tells us in verse 1 that Jesus has “returned to Capernaum.”  Capernaum was a flourishing city situated on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, near the place where the Jordan River flows into the Sea of Galilee.  The word “Capernaum” means “village of comfort.”^[ii] Jesus had previously been in Capernaum, giving comfort to many, (Mk. 1:21).  But he left there to minister in other towns. (Mk. 1:39).  Now, Jesus returns to Capernaum.  And once again Capernaum becomes a village of comfort.

Mark tells us that in Capernaum Jesus is “at home” (Mk. 2:1).  The “home” is most likely Peter’s home.  There are still in Capernaum remnants of what many believe was Peter’s home.  Earlier in Mk. 1:29ff Jesus stays in this very home.  Peter and his family now host Jesus again.  The first time Jesus stayed at Peter’s house, “the whole city was gathered together at the door” of the house (Mk. 1:33)—people trying to be comforted by Jesus.  According to verse 2 of our text, the same thing happens again: And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. Mark suggests that it is even more crowded at Peter’s house this time than the last time.  The first time, “the whole city was gathered” outside the door.  This time, Mark notes “there was no more room, not even at the door.”  It may be that now even people from outside Capernaum are streaming toward Peter’s house to receive comfort from Jesus.[iii]

But we move from this sea of nameless and faceless people to five specific people: one paralytic man carried on his bed by four friends.  The fact that he is being carried by four others indicates just how severe his paralysis is.[iv] This is not just a withered hand, as in the story we explored last Sunday.  This is a withered body.  Here is a man who can do nothing for himself.  He cannot get out of bed in the morning.  He cannot feed himself breakfast or brush his teeth.  He cannot get to the bathroom.  He cannot bathe himself.  He cannot dress himself.  Someone does all of this for him.  He cannot find a job.  He cannot woo a woman.  He cannot father children.  All this man can do is lie uselessly on his bed.

In fact, in the original Greek in which this story was written, the Greek word for “bed” is the dominant word in this text.  Here is a Greek word frequency diagram of this text. The word “krabbaton” is the word for “bed.”  The size of its font and its placement in the middle of this diagram show that “krabbaton” is the central word in this story.  What Mark wants to highlight above all is the man’s bed.  His bed is his home.  His bed is his prison.  His bed is his life.  When we think about this man, Mark wants us to think primarily about his bed.

Unable to get through the crowd to Jesus, the four men carry their paralytic friend to the roof of Peter’s house.  It was common for houses in that time to have an external staircase leading to the roof.  The language Mark uses suggests that this was a flat roof constructed of rafters.  Over the rafters would have been spread mud-plastered branches.  The four men dig through the mud-plastered branches, and lower the paralytic on his bed between the rafters.[v]

What Jesus does next is unexpected: 5And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” (Mk. 2:5 ESV).  The first shock is that Jesus says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”  We expect Jesus to say, “Son, your paralysis is healed.”  But Jesus says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”  Why does Jesus focus on forgiving his sins rather than healing his paralysis?  The second shock is that forgiveness is given “When Jesus saw their faith.”  We might expect Jesus to forgive the paralytic’s sins because Jesus sees the paralytic’s faith.  Instead, forgiveness is granted because Jesus sees the friends’ faith.

And these two surprising acts spark a conflict with the religious leaders: 6Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7″Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk. 2:6-7 ESV).  The “scribes” are legal scholars. They enjoyed a high reputation in that time as experts who knew the Old Testament law.^[vi] They are Bible experts.  And above all they know what the Bible says about forgiveness of sins.  Forgiveness, they believe, can only come from God in heaven, not from some man on earth.  And forgiveness from God, they believe, can only come through the right religious means.  It cannot be tossed out to someone in the careless fashion that Jesus, a non-religious-expert, has tossed it out.

8And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? 9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11″I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” 12And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mk. 2:8-12 ESV).  Jesus asks, “Which is easier: to forgive sin or heal paralysis?”  Jesus is asking which is easier in terms of someone’s ability to observe it and verify it.[vii] Because sin is hard to see and so is forgiveness, no one can verify that this man’s sins have indeed been forgiven.  But if Jesus could heal the man’s paralysis…that’s something everyone could see.  So Jesus does just this.  And the man who’s been lying in a bed, trapped in a bed, gets out of the bed, and goes home.

In order for us to get at the heart of this story, it’s important for us to understand the implied connection between the man’s sin and the man’s paralysis.  The four friends lower through the roof a man with paralysis.  But Jesus forgives the man’s sins.  Then, in order to verify that he can forgive the man’s sins, Jesus heals the man’s paralysis.

It may be that the man’s paralysis was caused by the man’s sin.

• We see a similar connection in David’s praise to God in Ps. 103: “2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, 3who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases…” (Ps. 103:2-3 ESV).  David praises God because God forgives all iniquities and heals all diseases.  There seems to be a link between the two.
• We find this connection elsewhere in Jesus’ ministry.  In Jn. 5 Jesus heals an invalid who has been lying near a pool of water.  Jesus tells him to get up, take up his bed and walk.  Shortly after that healing, we hear this exchange: 14Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” (Jn. 5:14 ESV).  It appears that the man’s disability was tied to his sin.  Jesus warns him to sin no more or something worse than being an invalid may happen to him.

Not every person with a physical disability in the Bible has the disability because of a sin.  For example, in Jn. 9 the disciples assume a man with blindness has sinned.  Jesus tells them he has not sinned.  But it was sometimes the case that physical disease or disability was caused by sin.

At some level, it’s likely that this paralytic’s condition is tied to his sin.  This wouldn’t be the case for every paralytic, but it may be the case for this paralytic.  Why else would Jesus’ first response to the man be to deal with the man’s sin?

This connection reveals two key elements in the story, two key differences between religion and following Jesus.  The first element has to do with the guilt of sin.  At first, this is a debate over how to handle the guilt of this man’s sin.  The scribes believe they know exactly how forgiveness of someone’s guilt should be resolved.  Guilt can only be forgiven by God.  And God only absolves guilt through the right religious means.  If the paralytic wants forgiveness, let his friends carry him to the temple. If the paralytic wants forgiveness, let his friends carry him to the high priest.  Forgiveness of guilt only comes from God and only comes to those capable of utilizing the right religious means.

Enter Jesus.  Suddenly forgiveness is no longer locked away in heaven.  Forgiveness is no longer as far away as the clouds are from the ground.  Forgiveness is now as close as Jesus is to the man.  And forgiveness no longer is restricted to certain religious means.  It’s not tied to the altar.  It’s not tied to the priests.  It’s not the domain of religious experts.  Suddenly forgiveness has been let out of the religious cage and it’s running around like a two-year-old golden retriever who’s never been out of the cage before and is jumping and running and licking and wagging his tail in every place and on every person.  Suddenly forgiveness is flying amuck like a set of balloons filled to overflowing and then released, the escaping air propelling them in loopy turns and twists into every corner of the room.

That’s one of those key differences between religion and Jesus.  Religion wants to restrict the forgiveness of sin’s guilt.  But Jesus wants to release the forgiveness of sin’s guilt. Jesus doesn’t even wait for some demonstration from the paralytic that the paralytic has faith.  Jesus sees the faith of the friends, and that’s enough.  Jesus is so eager to forgive, that he just needs to see someone acting with faith, anyone acting with faith, even if it’s not the paralytic.

Some of you here this morning are burdened with the guilt of a sin.  That burden of guilt is so heavy.  That burden made it hard for you to get up this morning.  You’ve been carried here this morning in that guilt.  You are filled with shame.  You are filled with regret.

You can take that guilt to religion.  But your guilt will only get worse.  There, you’ll have a hard time finding forgiveness.  If it’s given at all, it will be given in as stingy a manner as possible.  And it will come with all kinds of strings attached.

Or you can take that guilt to Jesus.  At the slightest excuse, Jesus will forgive.  Even if all you can do is get a friend to drag you to Jesus, he’ll forgive.  You follow religion, and forgiveness will always be restricted.  You follow Jesus, and forgiveness will always be released.

But there is a second key element in this story.  The story not only revolves around the guilt of sin.  It also revolves around the consequences of sin. Jesus doesn’t just want to send this man home with a nice warm feeling inside.  Jesus doesn’t just want to remove the guilt of the man’s sin.  Ultimately, Jesus wants to overturn the consequences of his sin.  And that’s something that religion can’t even touch.  Religion can only attempt to deal with forgiving the guilt of sin.  But Jesus can actually reverse the consequences of sin. 

We can literally say that this man “made his bed” and now “has to lie in it.”  There is a sense in which this terrible bed is connected to some sin of his.  He has made this bed.  Religion can attempt to do something about the guilt of the bed.  But it cannot do anything about the bed itself.  It can try to forgive the man for the bed.  But it cannot rescue the man from the bed.

And that’s exactly what Jesus does: 11″I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” Notice those three commands: Rise, pick up your bed, and go home.

• Rise.  Jesus makes it possible for the very first time for this man to escape the clutches of the bed he’s made.  Jesus not only forgives sin’s guilt.  Jesus also frees him from sin’s consequences.  He rises and is rescued from the impact of his sin.
• Pick up your bed.  The bed used to carry the man.  Now Jesus makes it possible for the man to carry the bed.  Jesus could have told the man to “rise and go home” and ignored the bed.  But Jesus wants the man to feel with his own hands the control that Jesus has given him over sin’s consequences.  Jesus wants the man to feel with his own hands that he’s not only escaped the guilt of that sin, he’s also escaped its consequences.  The past can no longer carry this man.
• Go home.  Jesus specifically sends the man home.  He doesn’t send the man to the temple.  He doesn’t send the man to the synagogue.  He sends the former paralytic and his bed home.  Why?  Home is a symbol of the man’s normal life.  Jesus wants him to go and experience a new normal.  He wants the man to see what regular life can be like when you’re no longer chained to the consequences of mistakes from your past.

If you want to go with religion, all you have the hope of getting is forgiveness of guilt.  And that’s a slim hope.  But if you go with Jesus, he’ll not only forgive your guilt, he can even reverse the consequences of sin.  Some of you here this morning know you’re forgiven.  You accept the fact that Jesus has removed your guilt.  But you still feel trapped.  Your present is still imprisoned by the mistakes of your past.  You’re still lying on the bed you made.  Let Jesus free you from that bed.  Let his words to the paralytic be his words to you: Rise, pick up your bed, and go home.

Since moving to Houston Levee, 7 men and women have taken Jesus up on this offer.  Rather than turning to religion, they’ve turned to Jesus.  And through baptism, they’ve found forgiveness of guilt and freedom from their bed.  This morning, 2 more will be doing the same.  Why don’t you join them?  Let’s all decide this morning to be irreligious.  Let’s give up on religion.  And let’s follow Jesus.

^[ii] Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[iii] Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Eerdmans, 1993), 111.

[iv] Gundry, 111.

[v] Gundry, 117.

^[vi] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (127). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

[vii] Gundry, 118.

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.”

I’m trying, LORD.

I’m trying to do what’s right…to believe and not doubt…to fill my mind with you…to not be influenced by the crowd…to praise you.

I don’t always succeed.  I don’t often succeed.  Sometimes I don’t succeed at all.

But I am trying, LORD. 

I hope you see my effort.  I hope you will reward my intention.

I’m trying LORD.

[Image]