I would like to revisit a portion of my blog from yesterday, particularly the topic of judgement. Rereading St. Paul's admonition from the book of 1 Corinthians, I think is pretty informative and extremely important in how the church relates to society these days. Please look at it again:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—
10not at all meaning the
immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since
you would then need to go out of the world.
11But now I am writing to
you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or
sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler,
drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge?
13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
Paul makes a very definite distinction when it comes to rendering judgement upon others.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons--not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world."
Paul here makes it clear that Christians are not to remove themselves from the world. They are not supposed to keep themselves ritually or ethically pure by refusing to interact with those who are immoral. Indeed, we as Christians are actually called to go into the world and seek out those who are living immoral lives and bring the good news of Jesus Christ to them. But there is a method we are called to use in engaging such folks, and please forgive me while I snip some of Paul's comments and reconstruct them. I do not think I am changing their meaning, but I am striving to flesh out Paul's argument.
Paul is very clear that while associating with such folks, we are not in a position to render judgement upon them. "For what have I to do with judging those outside? ...God will judge those outside." For those who are not a part of the church, we cannot render judgement upon them. Of course, we can render the judgement that we see their machinations as contrary to our own belief and value system. We can call them immoral according to the commands and Laws of God/Christ. We can refuse to participate in such behavior ourselves, and in some cases, we can and should protest certain behaviors when they are abusive, violent, and demeaning. But, aside from those circumstances, Christians are called to keep their judgements to themselves. It is not kosher to speak the following to a non-believer, "If you don't stop behaving in that manner, you will go to hell."
Such "evangelistic" methods will not bring anyone to Christ in this day and age. In fact, it will usually have quite the opposite effect. It will make you, and Christianity, seem harsh, uncaring, and self-righteous. Ixnay on the judgements of those outside the church and who are not actively in a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Ah, but what about judging from within the Church?
Again, St. Paul is quite clear. "But now I am writing to
you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or
sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler,
drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one... ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’"
There is a clear line of demarcation here. If you are outside the bounds of the church, we shall not render judgement upon you, but if you are a part of the body of Christ...and you do not act accordingly...and you are being immoral...then judgement is necessary.
Paul lifts up the difference here between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace has no impact on me and the way I live my life. Costly grace means I am changed and transformed (sanctification), and the way I live seeks to glorify God by following God's commands. If I step out of those commands and live my life in a way that does not bring God glory, then there is a community of faith commissioned with bringing me back into line and calling me to repent. They/We are justified in doing so, and it is quite necessary.
Of course, whenever this is done, there are those who readily say, "Take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in mine."
Granted. Jesus was very clear in his instruction regarding such matters; however, He also commissioned a process of judgement which is not based solely at the discretion of any one individual. It is intimately tied to a local community of faith--the church (Matthew 18). Therefore, witch hunts driven by the ego of one individual aren't allowed. Rendering judgement is necessary and is to be carried out by and on those within the Christian faith--not on those who are outside it.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Who is Welcome?
A Facebook colleague shared the following blog post:
When my abuser is welcome at the table and, I am not.
Pertinent quotes:
It’s the cool thing in more progressive branches of Christianity now to talk about how EVERYONE is welcome at the communion table. I should be glad about that, I guess...
But this trend in Christianity where EVERYONE is welcome scares me.
Maybe it’s because of the time when a former friend of Abe’s, who knew my back story, told Abe and I that we had to be grateful that Jesus forgives rapists. Who told us that because we could not see rapists as sinners just like us, we must not know Jesus like he does.
Or maybe it’s because of the people who cut off all ties to me because I’m not all that cheery and positive in my critiques of abusive systems and ideologies. Those same people who talk about how they long to sit down at the communion table with popular spiritually abusive leaders in a show of grace and forgiveness.
Or maybe it’s because of the way I see so-called progressive Christians in powerful positions react when my friends who are gay or trans* or disabled or people of color say, “Hey, this person/ideology is oppressing us.”
EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.
And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.
Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.
I apologize for the length of that quote, but I do not want to diminish what Sarah Moon is saying. She's been abused. She's been raped. She's terrified of coming to a place where her abuser is welcomed, and she senses that she is not--not that she isn't welcome, she knows that, but where it seems like there is little compassion, comfort, or even safety for her.
Everyone is welcome. That is the mantra. No boundaries. Anything goes.
This is one of those responses to pluralism that has infected the church--yes, I used infected purposely.
The idea that everyone is welcome has never been embraced by orthodox Christianity. It wasn't embraced by Jesus. It wasn't embraced by Paul. So where did this idea come from? Where did people start buying into the idea EVERYONE is welcome at the table of the Lord?
It's About Grace
Progressive Protestantism is enamored with the concept of grace. I don't blame them in the least. I am too. When I hear the words of Romans 3
21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
and Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
my heart quickens. This central doctrine of Christianity is something I cling to and refuse to let go of.
But there is a dark side to the concept of grace. A dark side which reared its head in the early church and still rears its head even to this day. It's called antinomianism. That's the fancy word for it. The less fancy word is lawlessness or anti-law.
You see, Christianity is both law and gospel. The laws are the commands of God, the commands of Christ, the admonishments to live our lives according to God's will and do the works He commands. The gospel is the acclamation that since we are unable to accomplish living the commands of Christ to perfection, we are forgiven and set free to live our lives striving to achieve perfection (follow the law) without worrying about being punished when we fail.
There is a bit of tightrope walking that I am doing in that last paragraph. I hope you can see it. In no way, shape or form does grace git rid of the law. In no way, shape or form does grace nullify the commands of God or the commands of Jesus. They are still in effect. What is gone is that we are no longer under the discipline of that law should we fail. (Galatians 3:25). But that certainly does not mean we are allowed to simply break the law. Far be it. For the same person (St. Paul) who wrote that we are no longer under the DISCIPLINE of the law also wrote: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
So, as Christians, we are free from the discipline of the law, but we still strive to uphold it. This is important for without the Law, there are no boundaries; and in Christianity, there are definitely boundaries.
Who is Out?
The idea that Jesus showed this radical love and accepted everyone regardless of who they were and what they did is simply asinine. It is a misreading of Jesus. The very fact that Jesus died for the world does not mean that He accepted everyone and believed everyone was welcome. There is a very important teaching to illustrate this point, and it applies to Sarah Moon's situation as well as to the understanding of boundaries in the church. From Matthew chapter 18:
Jesus teaches: 15 ‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Would that the church follow these instructions!! But alas, I can hope, can't I?
First off, we must recognize immediately Jesus saying, "If another member of the church sins against you..." There is definitely right and definitely wrong going on here. And how do we know what sin is? How do we know what is right and what is wrong? The Law. We cannot abolish the Law!!! It is necessary for clarity and boundaries and helping us know what is sin!!!
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.
That's the first step. Now, if I were counseling Sarah or any other woman or man who had been abused by another, I would never counsel them to go alone. There are exceptions to things, and this is one of them. I would counsel them to bypass this step and move to step two--for protection's sake and for courage's sake.
I know intimately people who have been abused. I know the pain inflicted upon them. I know their desire and want to avoid those whom have harmed them, but I also know that if one tries to avoid everyone and every situation that one might encounter an abuser, then the one who was abused becomes trapped. This is not good. The church, in whatever form that might take, should provide a safe place for someone who has been abused to find courage, strength, healing, support, a place to break down without judgement and other means of emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. We cannot diminish these things.
And one of those things is the courage to stand up to those who committed the abuse with the knowledge that person will not be allowed to harm him or her again--the courage to announce, "You sinned against me!"
Now, here is a very important piece. Jesus says, "If the person repents, you have gained a brother."
This might cause some consternation because forgiveness comes with difficulty. The healing is not necessarily done at that moment, but it none-the-less must take place. Reconciliation is hard--very hard. If you don't think so, just listen to some of the voices in minority communities these days when dealing with the effects of the Jim Crow laws. There are still demands for retribution--even given to generations born well after these laws were in effect. Forgiveness does not come easy. Forgetting never happens. Which is why support from those abused should never, ever be withdrawn until the abused say, "I am healed."
But that is just one scenario. "If he repents..."
What if he doesn't?
Well, there are a series of steps to continue on with including exposing the sinner to the entire church. Yeah, I know all about privacy laws and such things, but in order for infection to be dealt with, it must be exposed. In this case, if an unrepentant sinner refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing--refuses to come to grips with what he did to damage another, then the church must act.
"Treat that one as a Gentile or tax collector."
These were outsiders in the Jewish society. They were not allowed certain privileges when it came to worship and the holding of positions in Jewish society. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't come in contact with such folks. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't care about or love them. They were now restricted though. There were certain things they were not allowed to participate in.
In the early church and as the church grew, this meant excommunication--a refusal of the Lord's Supper. Until repentance was shown, the means of grace would not be allowed to this person.
Boundaries. They were important then. They are still important now.
St. Paul knew this--knew it well. He had to deal with a situation in Corinth which was not healthy, and once again, we see him drawing the lines in the sand with a particular church member:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
How quickly we forget such admonitions from both Jesus and Paul. How quickly we forget that they drew boundaries, lines in the sand, which should not be crossed. How quickly we forget that radical grace meant radically new ways of living and transformation of the heart and soul.
Who is welcome? Well, all sinners are welcome. There is no doubt about that. But sinners who are accused of sinning against another and refusing to repent according to Matthew 18 are not. The church has had means of dealing with such things since its inception. Somehow, there are those who have forgotten.
When my abuser is welcome at the table and, I am not.
Pertinent quotes:
It’s the cool thing in more progressive branches of Christianity now to talk about how EVERYONE is welcome at the communion table. I should be glad about that, I guess...
But this trend in Christianity where EVERYONE is welcome scares me.
Maybe it’s because of the time when a former friend of Abe’s, who knew my back story, told Abe and I that we had to be grateful that Jesus forgives rapists. Who told us that because we could not see rapists as sinners just like us, we must not know Jesus like he does.
Or maybe it’s because of the people who cut off all ties to me because I’m not all that cheery and positive in my critiques of abusive systems and ideologies. Those same people who talk about how they long to sit down at the communion table with popular spiritually abusive leaders in a show of grace and forgiveness.
Or maybe it’s because of the way I see so-called progressive Christians in powerful positions react when my friends who are gay or trans* or disabled or people of color say, “Hey, this person/ideology is oppressing us.”
EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.
And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.
Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.
I apologize for the length of that quote, but I do not want to diminish what Sarah Moon is saying. She's been abused. She's been raped. She's terrified of coming to a place where her abuser is welcomed, and she senses that she is not--not that she isn't welcome, she knows that, but where it seems like there is little compassion, comfort, or even safety for her.
Everyone is welcome. That is the mantra. No boundaries. Anything goes.
This is one of those responses to pluralism that has infected the church--yes, I used infected purposely.
The idea that everyone is welcome has never been embraced by orthodox Christianity. It wasn't embraced by Jesus. It wasn't embraced by Paul. So where did this idea come from? Where did people start buying into the idea EVERYONE is welcome at the table of the Lord?
It's About Grace
Progressive Protestantism is enamored with the concept of grace. I don't blame them in the least. I am too. When I hear the words of Romans 3
21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
and Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
my heart quickens. This central doctrine of Christianity is something I cling to and refuse to let go of.
But there is a dark side to the concept of grace. A dark side which reared its head in the early church and still rears its head even to this day. It's called antinomianism. That's the fancy word for it. The less fancy word is lawlessness or anti-law.
You see, Christianity is both law and gospel. The laws are the commands of God, the commands of Christ, the admonishments to live our lives according to God's will and do the works He commands. The gospel is the acclamation that since we are unable to accomplish living the commands of Christ to perfection, we are forgiven and set free to live our lives striving to achieve perfection (follow the law) without worrying about being punished when we fail.
There is a bit of tightrope walking that I am doing in that last paragraph. I hope you can see it. In no way, shape or form does grace git rid of the law. In no way, shape or form does grace nullify the commands of God or the commands of Jesus. They are still in effect. What is gone is that we are no longer under the discipline of that law should we fail. (Galatians 3:25). But that certainly does not mean we are allowed to simply break the law. Far be it. For the same person (St. Paul) who wrote that we are no longer under the DISCIPLINE of the law also wrote: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
So, as Christians, we are free from the discipline of the law, but we still strive to uphold it. This is important for without the Law, there are no boundaries; and in Christianity, there are definitely boundaries.
Who is Out?
The idea that Jesus showed this radical love and accepted everyone regardless of who they were and what they did is simply asinine. It is a misreading of Jesus. The very fact that Jesus died for the world does not mean that He accepted everyone and believed everyone was welcome. There is a very important teaching to illustrate this point, and it applies to Sarah Moon's situation as well as to the understanding of boundaries in the church. From Matthew chapter 18:
Jesus teaches: 15 ‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Would that the church follow these instructions!! But alas, I can hope, can't I?
First off, we must recognize immediately Jesus saying, "If another member of the church sins against you..." There is definitely right and definitely wrong going on here. And how do we know what sin is? How do we know what is right and what is wrong? The Law. We cannot abolish the Law!!! It is necessary for clarity and boundaries and helping us know what is sin!!!
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.
That's the first step. Now, if I were counseling Sarah or any other woman or man who had been abused by another, I would never counsel them to go alone. There are exceptions to things, and this is one of them. I would counsel them to bypass this step and move to step two--for protection's sake and for courage's sake.
I know intimately people who have been abused. I know the pain inflicted upon them. I know their desire and want to avoid those whom have harmed them, but I also know that if one tries to avoid everyone and every situation that one might encounter an abuser, then the one who was abused becomes trapped. This is not good. The church, in whatever form that might take, should provide a safe place for someone who has been abused to find courage, strength, healing, support, a place to break down without judgement and other means of emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. We cannot diminish these things.
And one of those things is the courage to stand up to those who committed the abuse with the knowledge that person will not be allowed to harm him or her again--the courage to announce, "You sinned against me!"
Now, here is a very important piece. Jesus says, "If the person repents, you have gained a brother."
This might cause some consternation because forgiveness comes with difficulty. The healing is not necessarily done at that moment, but it none-the-less must take place. Reconciliation is hard--very hard. If you don't think so, just listen to some of the voices in minority communities these days when dealing with the effects of the Jim Crow laws. There are still demands for retribution--even given to generations born well after these laws were in effect. Forgiveness does not come easy. Forgetting never happens. Which is why support from those abused should never, ever be withdrawn until the abused say, "I am healed."
But that is just one scenario. "If he repents..."
What if he doesn't?
Well, there are a series of steps to continue on with including exposing the sinner to the entire church. Yeah, I know all about privacy laws and such things, but in order for infection to be dealt with, it must be exposed. In this case, if an unrepentant sinner refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing--refuses to come to grips with what he did to damage another, then the church must act.
"Treat that one as a Gentile or tax collector."
These were outsiders in the Jewish society. They were not allowed certain privileges when it came to worship and the holding of positions in Jewish society. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't come in contact with such folks. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't care about or love them. They were now restricted though. There were certain things they were not allowed to participate in.
In the early church and as the church grew, this meant excommunication--a refusal of the Lord's Supper. Until repentance was shown, the means of grace would not be allowed to this person.
Boundaries. They were important then. They are still important now.
St. Paul knew this--knew it well. He had to deal with a situation in Corinth which was not healthy, and once again, we see him drawing the lines in the sand with a particular church member:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
How quickly we forget such admonitions from both Jesus and Paul. How quickly we forget that they drew boundaries, lines in the sand, which should not be crossed. How quickly we forget that radical grace meant radically new ways of living and transformation of the heart and soul.
Who is welcome? Well, all sinners are welcome. There is no doubt about that. But sinners who are accused of sinning against another and refusing to repent according to Matthew 18 are not. The church has had means of dealing with such things since its inception. Somehow, there are those who have forgotten.
Monday, June 10, 2013
"They Glorified God Because of Me"
Paul was no friend of the early church. He freely admits this. In fact, Paul admits that he violently persecuted the church. We have further witness of this from Luke’s account in the book of Acts when Luke tells us about the first martyr of the church, Stephen.
Stephen proclaimed the gospel, and he upset quite a few folks. Rather than backtrack on what he proclaimed, he pushed the envelope, and he was stoned. There was a young man who looked after the cloaks of those who were stoning Stephen, and that young man was named Saul, who would later become Paul. This same Saul had obtained permission to head to Damascus and arrest Christians there when an extraordinary event took place that changed his life, but more about that later.
Paul grew up as a Pharisee, and by his own account, he was a very good one. He was the modern day equivalent of the churchman who went to church every Sunday rain or shine; who gave 10% of his offering to the church; who went to Bible study on Sunday and Wednesday night; who contributed to every fund-raiser and who served on the church council. But I think perhaps it went even further than that because Paul calls himself blameless according to the law. This means, Paul ate the right foods, washed his hands at the right times, wore the right clothing, prayed at the right times and associated with the right people. The Jewish faith was not something Paul simply talked about and practiced when it suited him; no. The Jewish faith was something he lived to the nth degree.
Paul was so absorbed into the Jewish faith that it literally was his life. And he was not happy about anything that would threaten his beloved faith. When word started being spread that a group of people dared to say that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah who was raised from the dead, Paul knew this posed a threat. It was obvious to him this was a lie. The Jewish people were not free from their enemies. Rome still occupied Israel. God had not reestablished the Jewish monarchy as no descendant of David sat on the throne. And indeed, no one could be raised from the dead. Once a person was dead, that person was dead–no return from that state. Despite all the evidence, this movement was attracting followers. His fellow Jews were converting and becoming Christian, and this was troubling. How could people follow this lie? How could people desert the truth of the Jewish faith and say Jesus is the resurrected Lord and Messiah? It did not make sense to him. It was obviously false...and a threat. The movement had to be countered.
And Paul was all to happy to oblige. The same drive that made him work to perfection drove him to persecute the early church. He strove to find followers of Jesus and have them arrested. His zealous pursuit and defense of the Jewish faith won admirers in high places, so when Paul heard about the church taking root in Damascus, he asked for and received permission to persecute the church there. Armed with arrest warrants, he headed out.
And that is when his life was changed. In an instant. In the blink of an eye. A light appeared, and a voice spoke, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
“Who are you?” Saul responded.
“I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.”
Paul had encountered the Living Lord, and it was a life-changing event. I spoke not to long ago how this event completely shattered his worldview and forced him to rethink everything he thought he knew. It turned Paul’s world upside down, and after all was said and done, he went from zealous persecutor of the Church to ardent missionary and proclaimer of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Most agreed, the transformation was amazing. The one who persecuted the Church with zeal now became one of its strongest supporters and one of the most obsessed evangelists that ever existed. Paul says as much in our second lesson this morning as he recounts all of these episodes in his life.
He says, “20In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’”
And then we come to a very fascinating statement in verse 24, “And they glorified God because of me.”
Think about that statement for just a minute. “They glorified God because of me.”
I began to wonder if I had heard such a statement in the entire time I’ve been serving as a pastor. I began thinking about all the thank you notes I have received. I began thinking about all the thank you notes I have seen published in church newsletters. I began thinking about all the correspondence I’ve received from other religious institutions and such. I began to think about all the comments I’ve received on my sermons and the comments I have given to others who have preached. And to the best of my recollection, I cannot ever think of hearing anything similar.
Usually, the things churches and pastors get say this or something similar:
Thank you for your words of comfort at the funeral.
Thank you for sending a donation to help us in our mission and ministry.
Thank you for officiating at our wedding and helping us enjoy our special day.
Thank you for helping our family out during this financial crisis.
Now, these words aren’t bad. There is nothing wrong with them, so if you are in the process of writing a thank you letter or what have you, please do not think that I am somehow slamming you. I’m not. But contrast these words with what Paul says:
They glorified God because of me.
While many people thank us, the early Christians were glorifying God because of Paul. This leads me to ask why are people focusing on us instead of giving God the glory?
I have to ask that question because I think it gets to the heart and soul of the purpose of the Church in society. I think it gets to the heart and soul of what our mission and our purpose as Christians is in this world in which we live.
Let me try to be as clear as possible without being too offensive: it is not the church’s job to call attention to itself. It is not the church’s job to simply do good things and get recognized for that. It is not the church’s job to get as many people to join as possible so that we can keep the lights on, the building air conditioned, run a few programs that keep kids entertained, hold a few fund raisers and benefits for those in need, and other such things. It is not a pastor’s job to work hard to get compliments on what he or she preaches or teaches or does at a funeral or wedding. Now, we certainly do all of those things, but this is not our primary purpose. It is not our primary job.
Please listen closely: our primary job is to introduce people to and point the way to the God who makes all of these things possible. Our primary job is to lift up the awesomeness of our God and what He did in taking on flesh, dwelling among us, and reconciling the world unto himself. It is our primary job to keep God as the focus, as the center, as that which our lives revolve around. We do not want people to see us! I know that may be hard to get your head around, but I assure you, I think it is absolutely true. We do not want people to see us; we want them to see God.
And so, we must ask ourselves: are people seeing us or are they seeing God? Are they thanking us or are they thanking God? Are others glorifying us or are they glorifying God? And if they are focusing on us instead of God, why is that the case?
Let us pray. Heavenly Father, the early church glorified you because of your work. Sometimes we get things backward today and strive to lift up ourselves instead of you. Give us the strength, courage, and desire to set ourselves aside so that others may see you and give glory to you because of us. Amen.
Stephen proclaimed the gospel, and he upset quite a few folks. Rather than backtrack on what he proclaimed, he pushed the envelope, and he was stoned. There was a young man who looked after the cloaks of those who were stoning Stephen, and that young man was named Saul, who would later become Paul. This same Saul had obtained permission to head to Damascus and arrest Christians there when an extraordinary event took place that changed his life, but more about that later.
Paul grew up as a Pharisee, and by his own account, he was a very good one. He was the modern day equivalent of the churchman who went to church every Sunday rain or shine; who gave 10% of his offering to the church; who went to Bible study on Sunday and Wednesday night; who contributed to every fund-raiser and who served on the church council. But I think perhaps it went even further than that because Paul calls himself blameless according to the law. This means, Paul ate the right foods, washed his hands at the right times, wore the right clothing, prayed at the right times and associated with the right people. The Jewish faith was not something Paul simply talked about and practiced when it suited him; no. The Jewish faith was something he lived to the nth degree.
Paul was so absorbed into the Jewish faith that it literally was his life. And he was not happy about anything that would threaten his beloved faith. When word started being spread that a group of people dared to say that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah who was raised from the dead, Paul knew this posed a threat. It was obvious to him this was a lie. The Jewish people were not free from their enemies. Rome still occupied Israel. God had not reestablished the Jewish monarchy as no descendant of David sat on the throne. And indeed, no one could be raised from the dead. Once a person was dead, that person was dead–no return from that state. Despite all the evidence, this movement was attracting followers. His fellow Jews were converting and becoming Christian, and this was troubling. How could people follow this lie? How could people desert the truth of the Jewish faith and say Jesus is the resurrected Lord and Messiah? It did not make sense to him. It was obviously false...and a threat. The movement had to be countered.
And Paul was all to happy to oblige. The same drive that made him work to perfection drove him to persecute the early church. He strove to find followers of Jesus and have them arrested. His zealous pursuit and defense of the Jewish faith won admirers in high places, so when Paul heard about the church taking root in Damascus, he asked for and received permission to persecute the church there. Armed with arrest warrants, he headed out.
And that is when his life was changed. In an instant. In the blink of an eye. A light appeared, and a voice spoke, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
“Who are you?” Saul responded.
“I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.”
Paul had encountered the Living Lord, and it was a life-changing event. I spoke not to long ago how this event completely shattered his worldview and forced him to rethink everything he thought he knew. It turned Paul’s world upside down, and after all was said and done, he went from zealous persecutor of the Church to ardent missionary and proclaimer of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Most agreed, the transformation was amazing. The one who persecuted the Church with zeal now became one of its strongest supporters and one of the most obsessed evangelists that ever existed. Paul says as much in our second lesson this morning as he recounts all of these episodes in his life.
He says, “20In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’”
And then we come to a very fascinating statement in verse 24, “And they glorified God because of me.”
Think about that statement for just a minute. “They glorified God because of me.”
I began to wonder if I had heard such a statement in the entire time I’ve been serving as a pastor. I began thinking about all the thank you notes I have received. I began thinking about all the thank you notes I have seen published in church newsletters. I began thinking about all the correspondence I’ve received from other religious institutions and such. I began to think about all the comments I’ve received on my sermons and the comments I have given to others who have preached. And to the best of my recollection, I cannot ever think of hearing anything similar.
Usually, the things churches and pastors get say this or something similar:
Thank you for your words of comfort at the funeral.
Thank you for sending a donation to help us in our mission and ministry.
Thank you for officiating at our wedding and helping us enjoy our special day.
Thank you for helping our family out during this financial crisis.
Now, these words aren’t bad. There is nothing wrong with them, so if you are in the process of writing a thank you letter or what have you, please do not think that I am somehow slamming you. I’m not. But contrast these words with what Paul says:
They glorified God because of me.
While many people thank us, the early Christians were glorifying God because of Paul. This leads me to ask why are people focusing on us instead of giving God the glory?
I have to ask that question because I think it gets to the heart and soul of the purpose of the Church in society. I think it gets to the heart and soul of what our mission and our purpose as Christians is in this world in which we live.
Let me try to be as clear as possible without being too offensive: it is not the church’s job to call attention to itself. It is not the church’s job to simply do good things and get recognized for that. It is not the church’s job to get as many people to join as possible so that we can keep the lights on, the building air conditioned, run a few programs that keep kids entertained, hold a few fund raisers and benefits for those in need, and other such things. It is not a pastor’s job to work hard to get compliments on what he or she preaches or teaches or does at a funeral or wedding. Now, we certainly do all of those things, but this is not our primary purpose. It is not our primary job.
Please listen closely: our primary job is to introduce people to and point the way to the God who makes all of these things possible. Our primary job is to lift up the awesomeness of our God and what He did in taking on flesh, dwelling among us, and reconciling the world unto himself. It is our primary job to keep God as the focus, as the center, as that which our lives revolve around. We do not want people to see us! I know that may be hard to get your head around, but I assure you, I think it is absolutely true. We do not want people to see us; we want them to see God.
And so, we must ask ourselves: are people seeing us or are they seeing God? Are they thanking us or are they thanking God? Are others glorifying us or are they glorifying God? And if they are focusing on us instead of God, why is that the case?
Let us pray. Heavenly Father, the early church glorified you because of your work. Sometimes we get things backward today and strive to lift up ourselves instead of you. Give us the strength, courage, and desire to set ourselves aside so that others may see you and give glory to you because of us. Amen.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Striving for Perfection
Be perfect, therefore, even as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48
It is a given that we as humans cannot achieve what Jesus says. It is an impossibility for us to completely be like God.
We cannot be all knowing.
We cannot be all powerful.
We cannot love unconditionally--perhaps at moment, but not totally.
We cannot achieve perfection in our relationships.
We simply cannot do it.
This is why we have the concept of grace. This is why St. Paul penned the words in Romans 3:
For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.
We are not saved/justified/made right with God by any of our actions. We are only made right with God by Him through Christ. Period. End of story.
Which, of course, then leads to the question: why try to achieve perfection at all? If perfection doesn't save me and I cannot attain it, why should I even go there? Why should I even strive for it? Why apply myself toward something that is an impossibility? Why try when failure is the outcome?
Many times I have sought a good argument for these questions. Many times, I have preached arguments, that I believe fell short. But I think I've got one now--drawn from the world of athletics.
Should a baseball player cease trying to hit the ball because his chances of actually getting a hit are generally less than 1 in 3?
Should a pitcher cease to pitch because of the rarity of throwing a perfect game?
Should a basketball player stop shooting the ball because the odds of making it are generally less than 1 in 2?
Should a football team's offense cease trying hard every play because the odds are short that they will score a touchdown on that given play?
Should a bowler cease bowling because of the difficulty in throwing a 300 game?
Should a golfer stop golfing because of the rarity of a hole in one?
Most would say that stopping would be asinine. You don't play sports because you can achieve perfection!
You also don't practice Christianity because you can achieve perfection.
You also practice and dedicate yourself and work hard in sports training your body to do better. The more reps you spend in a batting cage, the better chance you will have to hit the ball. The more times you practice shooting a basketball, the better you get at making baskets. The more you practice running a particular play in football, the more you maximize your chances of scoring a touchdown when you run it. The more you practice golfing and tweaking your swing, the more you maximize your chances of making a hole in one.
The goal drives what you do. If your goal is to hit every shot in basketball, you will work hard at achieving it--even though it is a statistical impossibility. If your goal is to get a hit in every at bat, you will work to achieve it--even though it is very, very unlikely. And so on, and so forth.
The goal in Christianity drives what we do as well. Not because we will achieve it. Not because we will achieve salvation, but because this is what it means to love God and our neighbor. Perfection is the goal, and it is our desire to achieve it--even though it is an impossibility.
But every once in a while, we hit a home run, score a touchdown, sink a hole in one, and bowl a strike. It helps us enjoy the game/life/faith, and inspires us to keep trying.
It is a given that we as humans cannot achieve what Jesus says. It is an impossibility for us to completely be like God.
We cannot be all knowing.
We cannot be all powerful.
We cannot love unconditionally--perhaps at moment, but not totally.
We cannot achieve perfection in our relationships.
We simply cannot do it.
This is why we have the concept of grace. This is why St. Paul penned the words in Romans 3:
For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.
We are not saved/justified/made right with God by any of our actions. We are only made right with God by Him through Christ. Period. End of story.
Which, of course, then leads to the question: why try to achieve perfection at all? If perfection doesn't save me and I cannot attain it, why should I even go there? Why should I even strive for it? Why apply myself toward something that is an impossibility? Why try when failure is the outcome?
Many times I have sought a good argument for these questions. Many times, I have preached arguments, that I believe fell short. But I think I've got one now--drawn from the world of athletics.
Should a baseball player cease trying to hit the ball because his chances of actually getting a hit are generally less than 1 in 3?
Should a pitcher cease to pitch because of the rarity of throwing a perfect game?
Should a basketball player stop shooting the ball because the odds of making it are generally less than 1 in 2?
Should a football team's offense cease trying hard every play because the odds are short that they will score a touchdown on that given play?
Should a bowler cease bowling because of the difficulty in throwing a 300 game?
Should a golfer stop golfing because of the rarity of a hole in one?
Most would say that stopping would be asinine. You don't play sports because you can achieve perfection!
You also don't practice Christianity because you can achieve perfection.
You also practice and dedicate yourself and work hard in sports training your body to do better. The more reps you spend in a batting cage, the better chance you will have to hit the ball. The more times you practice shooting a basketball, the better you get at making baskets. The more you practice running a particular play in football, the more you maximize your chances of scoring a touchdown when you run it. The more you practice golfing and tweaking your swing, the more you maximize your chances of making a hole in one.
The goal drives what you do. If your goal is to hit every shot in basketball, you will work hard at achieving it--even though it is a statistical impossibility. If your goal is to get a hit in every at bat, you will work to achieve it--even though it is very, very unlikely. And so on, and so forth.
The goal in Christianity drives what we do as well. Not because we will achieve it. Not because we will achieve salvation, but because this is what it means to love God and our neighbor. Perfection is the goal, and it is our desire to achieve it--even though it is an impossibility.
But every once in a while, we hit a home run, score a touchdown, sink a hole in one, and bowl a strike. It helps us enjoy the game/life/faith, and inspires us to keep trying.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Testimony Versus Historicity
In this and other cases, including the Gospels, testimony asks to be trusted. It does not consist in the presentation of evidence and argument for what only the witness, the involved insider, can tell us. In all cases, including even the law courts, testimony can be checked and assessed in appropriate ways but nevertheless has to be trusted. In the unique events we are considering, this is all the more true. To insist, with some Gospel critics, that the historicity of each and every Gospel periscope must be established, one by one, with arguments for each, is not to recognize testimony for what it necessarily is. It is to suppose that we can extract individual facts from testimony and build our own reconstruction of events that is no longer dependent upon the witness. It is to refuse that privileged access to truth that precisely participant testimony can give us. Ancient historiography rightly valued such testimony as essential to good history...
--Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony p. 502
Yes.
Bauckham has definitively destroyed the underlying assumptions for the quests of the Historical Jesus by rightly defining the Gospels not as history or mythology, but as stories based upon eyewitness testimony (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and by an eyewitness (John).
I am in agreement with Timothy Keller that this book will take a number of years to infiltrate current biblical scholarship, and it will be a new generation of biblical scholars who will carry this torch as it (hopefully) blossoms into a roaring fire. Yeah, it's that good.
It stands in sharp contrast to those who have undertaken the quest for the "historical Jesus." Those who undertake this task approach the gospel narratives with a skeptical nature--that they are narratives which include embellishment and perspectives of communities of faith instead of the reports of individual, eyewitness testimony. The task of the person/scholar searching for the "historical" Jesus is to wade through the mud and the muck in order to find the true jewels or authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus.
This Jesus historian then must reconstruct Jesus based upon those nuggets. So, you have a book like Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and The God We Never Knew. In each of these books, Borg reconstructs Jesus and God giving us a picture of a Jesus we never knew and a God we never knew.
Well...
Of course we never knew THAT Jesus and THAT God. They are Borg's reconstructions of Jesus and God. As such, they are Borg's Jesus and Borg's God not the God of scripture.
Plenty of folks have met Jesus through the Gospel accounts. Plenty of folks have met God through the biblical account, but they haven't met Borg's God and Borg's Jesus for obvious reasons.
Yet, Borg and others like him have garnered a hefty following in certain Christian circles. It's not surprising. (See: How Do Bad Ideas Continue to Stick Around)
Bauckham turns the tables and argues quite successfully that the Gospels demand to be approached with trust instead of skepticism--just as a person approaches another's testimony with trust unless given a reason to the contrary. Changing the assumption of how one approaches these documents changes the game--completely.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
I Have Been Ruined
I know that sounds like a strange title, but I found out something about myself this past weekend.
On Saturday, the family and I traveled to Camp Lutherhill in La Grange, TX. This year, my oldest will be attending summer camp, and we wanted to give her the chance to see camp and become a little more comfortable before leaving the nest for a week. It just so happened that Lutherhill was having "Open Camp" this Saturday, so not only did we get to see the camp, we got to experience it.
Open Camp gives folks the opportunity to engage in camp activities including swimming, archery, ropes, worship, and dining--all for free. It's a fantastic idea and one that really put my eldest at ease. As we were leaving, she even remarked, "I want to stay for two weeks!"
Now, enough of the advertisement for camp. Let's address the title of this post.
At 11:00 a.m. we gathered at the main outdoor chapel for worship and a sing-a-long. The camp counselors provided the music as we sang a host of camp songs, and in the midst of that sing-a-long, I discovered I had been ruined.
The song leader would get up to lead a song. He played guitar. He would play in one key, and he would sing in another key.
Musicians are cringing at this moment.
Those with little to no musical background are probably thinking, "What's the big deal."
Well, for those who have trained ears, having someone play in one key and sing in another is tantamount to:
nails on a chalkboard
rubbing a cat the wrong way
squeaking a balloon for hours
rubbing sandpaper on your bare butt
Yes, it's that bad.
I found that I couldn't sing along. I couldn't get into the music. I was ruined.
Years ago, this wouldn't have made a difference at all to me. I'd have simply followed the voice and not worried about the music. Heck, I'd have probably even sung in a third key, but things have happened to me over the years.
I began playing the guitar.
I began singing in a choir on a regular basis.
I began singing in a gospel band on a regular basis.
My ears began to change.
Perhaps this is a stretch theologically, but I don't think so.
I believe developing an ear to listening for God and developing an ear for music have several similarities:
On Saturday, the family and I traveled to Camp Lutherhill in La Grange, TX. This year, my oldest will be attending summer camp, and we wanted to give her the chance to see camp and become a little more comfortable before leaving the nest for a week. It just so happened that Lutherhill was having "Open Camp" this Saturday, so not only did we get to see the camp, we got to experience it.
Open Camp gives folks the opportunity to engage in camp activities including swimming, archery, ropes, worship, and dining--all for free. It's a fantastic idea and one that really put my eldest at ease. As we were leaving, she even remarked, "I want to stay for two weeks!"
Now, enough of the advertisement for camp. Let's address the title of this post.
At 11:00 a.m. we gathered at the main outdoor chapel for worship and a sing-a-long. The camp counselors provided the music as we sang a host of camp songs, and in the midst of that sing-a-long, I discovered I had been ruined.
The song leader would get up to lead a song. He played guitar. He would play in one key, and he would sing in another key.
Musicians are cringing at this moment.
Those with little to no musical background are probably thinking, "What's the big deal."
Well, for those who have trained ears, having someone play in one key and sing in another is tantamount to:
nails on a chalkboard
rubbing a cat the wrong way
squeaking a balloon for hours
rubbing sandpaper on your bare butt
Yes, it's that bad.
I found that I couldn't sing along. I couldn't get into the music. I was ruined.
Years ago, this wouldn't have made a difference at all to me. I'd have simply followed the voice and not worried about the music. Heck, I'd have probably even sung in a third key, but things have happened to me over the years.
I began playing the guitar.
I began singing in a choir on a regular basis.
I began singing in a gospel band on a regular basis.
My ears began to change.
- Whereas I used to have difficulty finding my part in singing in a choir--it comes with much more ease.
- Whereas I used to strum my guitar without worrying if a string were a little off--because I couldn't hear it, now, I stop and adjust if things are wonky.
- Whereas I used to sing and not worry about hitting pitch, I can immediately tell when I am off, and I have to adjust.
Perhaps this is a stretch theologically, but I don't think so.
I believe developing an ear to listening for God and developing an ear for music have several similarities:
- The more you are around music, the better you become at hearing the harmony. The more you immerse yourself in Christian disciplines--prayer, study, worship, fasting, etc.--the better able you become at distinguishing God's voice in the crowd.
- The more you are around music, the better you become in hearing that which is off key and out of tune. The more you have immersed yourself in disciplines--leading to distinguishing God's voice--the more you can tell when something is out of tune and out of line with God's will and desire.
- To truly develop your musical ear, you need to work with people--in a choir, in a band, with a coach. Going it alone only gets you so far. Ditto with developing your relationship with God; we need worship, coaches, pastors, scholars, those who write books, spiritual directors, and others who help in discerning God's voice.
- When you develop that ear, you are ruined. No longer do certain things satisfy. No longer is singing off key acceptable. No longer is it acceptable to allow a guitar string to be flat or sharp. Constant adjustment is needed. Same with living a live tuned into God. Constant adjustment is needed (repentance, forgiveness, absolution). No longer do the same things satisfy--"Man does not live by bread alone." You can see things which are out of tune with God--injustice, hunger, sickness, suffering. You desire to bring things back into tune and do so to the best of your ability.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Who Are You Trying to Please?
There is a little saying I have seen on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and on the internet on numerous occasions. I might be paraphrasing it a little differently, but the gist is the same. It reads:
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow is not looking good either.
I hope that caused you to chuckle just a little bit. It generally brings at least a grin to my face every time I see it. But as is the case with many little snippets, there are some underlying truths that are being addressed.
One of the truths being addressed is the seeming need by some people to have everyone please them. Perhaps you have run into such a person in your life. Fortunately, I think such folks are relatively rare, but when you run into them, you know it.
When I was in seminary, part of my training was to work as a hospital chaplain for 10 weeks. During that time period, I was called to visit a patient who was causing some difficulty. When I arrived, we began talking. After only a few minutes, the lady began asking me to do all sorts of things. At first, I graciously helped her with a few items, but then she asked me to do something that I wasn’t allowed to do.
I said, "I’m sorry ma’am, I cannot help you with that."
She retorted, "Why not?"
I replied, "I’m not allowed to do that. You will have to talk to your nurse to see if she can help you with that."
The woman, in a none-too-pleased tone responded, "You are a chaplain, aren’t you?"
I said, "Yes."
She quipped, "Aren’t you supposed to make me feel better?"
I answered, "No, ma’am. You’ve got to do that yourself."
And that’s when the fight started. No, not really. There was no fight, but there was a look of shock from this woman. She literally expected me to do whatever it took to please her, and she wasn’t exactly happy when I wouldn’t comply. Fortunately, there were no ill effects of this visit, but I have remembered it to this day. Why?
Well, when you run across such people, you learn very quickly there is no way to absolutely please them. They will continue to ask for things and harp about things ad nauseum because of a reality I pointed to–no one can make another person happy. Happiness cannot be brought about by expecting others to provide it to you.
That’s point one. The second point is that if you end up trying to please everyone or please someone who expects you to provide that happiness, you will end up in dire straights. I’ve seen this happen more than a few times, but perhaps someone who illustrated this in a marvelous way is science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in his book I Robot. Now, please know this before I begin, the book I Robot is vastly different from the movie staring Will Smith. The book is actually a collection of short stories, and it is to one of these stories that we now turn. It is titled, "Liar!"
Mind you, this book is science fiction, so you will have to allow your imaginations to work. In the story "Liar!" a robot develops the ability to read minds. The people in the story are trying to figure out why to begin with, but they soon find themselves entangled in a massive web of intrigue. It seems like the robot is lying to them. Theoretically, this should be impossible according to the three laws which govern robot behavior. Those laws are:
Law #1: A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction, or allow a human being to come to harm.
Law #2: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
Law #3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Now, Law #1 is critical to the story "Liar!" A robot may not injure a human being through inaction or allow a human being to come to harm. The robot in the story can read minds, and because it can read the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of those humans, it works diligently to make sure no injury comes to those human beings–even emotional injury. Think about that, and then think about your thoughts and what you desire and who you care about and what you would like to happen to you in the future.
Imagine someone who could read those thoughts and then read the thoughts of others. Imagine what would happen if you asked them about what others were thinking. Oh how nice it would be to find out what others were actually thinking about you. But then realize, the person who could read minds couldn’t injure you even emotionally. Imagine the person who could read minds saying exactly what you wanted to hear so that you felt no emotional pain. Imagine what that would do to you when you found out that you had been lied to. What would happen?
Well, in the short story "Liar!" the robot who actually did this ended up making absolutely no one happy, and when it realized it was actually causing pain by trying to make everyone happy, its brain short circuited and was fried.
Can you see the lesson raise by Asimov? Perhaps he didn’t intend for that lesson to come forward, but it’s pretty obvious to me–if you try to please everyone, you will actually please no one, and you will fry your brain in the process.
But this raises the question: who then are we to please? Who are we to focus on? Ourselves? I think if we focus totally on pleasing ourselves, we become like that lady I spoke about in the hospital. And we certainly cannot try to please everyone? Should we just work on pleasing our family? Our friends? Our boss? But what if they turn into those who abuse our good nature? Who are we to work toward pleasing?
As Christians, we have the answer to that question. It is tackled by St. Paul in the book of Galatians, and we have a portion of that before us this morning. In the opening verses of this book of the Bible, Paul writes:
10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Am I now seeking human approval or God’s approval? Which do you think Paul focuses on?
If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. If there was any doubt, Paul clears it up with that statement. He is not here to please people, and neither are we. We are here to please God. Period.
And what does it mean to please God? What does it mean to make God happy? Well, first off, we need to realize, that we can’t totally please God. All have fallen short of His glory. Even with being redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection, we still don’t stop sinning. We cannot achieve perfection. So, even if we don’t achieve perfection, what do we do? Do we cease trying? Do we stop trying to please God because we know His standards are unattainable?
Let me ask you this: does a baseball player refuse to step up and try to hit the ball even though his or her chances of actually getting a hit are generally about one in three? Does a basketball player stop trying to shoot baskets even though there’s only roughly a 50% chance she or he will make a basket? Does a football player refuse to give his all knowing that on most plays a touchdown is never scored or that he will not score that touchdown? Does a sprinter stop running as fast as he or she can even though he or she knows there is only one winner in the race–and there are others likely faster? No. In each scenario, the athlete strives to do his or her best. The athlete works because every once in a while, a ball is hit, a basket is made, a touchdown is scored, and a time is improved.
And what do you think happens when God sees us doing our best? What do you think happens when He sees us trying to please Him even though we fall short? Do you think He becomes angry? Do you think He grovels and prepares a couple of lightning bolts? No. Not at all. I’m pretty sure He says the same thing to us that He said to Jesus at Jesus’ baptism, "You are my child, with you I am well pleased." Amen.
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow is not looking good either.
I hope that caused you to chuckle just a little bit. It generally brings at least a grin to my face every time I see it. But as is the case with many little snippets, there are some underlying truths that are being addressed.
One of the truths being addressed is the seeming need by some people to have everyone please them. Perhaps you have run into such a person in your life. Fortunately, I think such folks are relatively rare, but when you run into them, you know it.
When I was in seminary, part of my training was to work as a hospital chaplain for 10 weeks. During that time period, I was called to visit a patient who was causing some difficulty. When I arrived, we began talking. After only a few minutes, the lady began asking me to do all sorts of things. At first, I graciously helped her with a few items, but then she asked me to do something that I wasn’t allowed to do.
I said, "I’m sorry ma’am, I cannot help you with that."
She retorted, "Why not?"
I replied, "I’m not allowed to do that. You will have to talk to your nurse to see if she can help you with that."
The woman, in a none-too-pleased tone responded, "You are a chaplain, aren’t you?"
I said, "Yes."
She quipped, "Aren’t you supposed to make me feel better?"
I answered, "No, ma’am. You’ve got to do that yourself."
And that’s when the fight started. No, not really. There was no fight, but there was a look of shock from this woman. She literally expected me to do whatever it took to please her, and she wasn’t exactly happy when I wouldn’t comply. Fortunately, there were no ill effects of this visit, but I have remembered it to this day. Why?
Well, when you run across such people, you learn very quickly there is no way to absolutely please them. They will continue to ask for things and harp about things ad nauseum because of a reality I pointed to–no one can make another person happy. Happiness cannot be brought about by expecting others to provide it to you.
That’s point one. The second point is that if you end up trying to please everyone or please someone who expects you to provide that happiness, you will end up in dire straights. I’ve seen this happen more than a few times, but perhaps someone who illustrated this in a marvelous way is science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in his book I Robot. Now, please know this before I begin, the book I Robot is vastly different from the movie staring Will Smith. The book is actually a collection of short stories, and it is to one of these stories that we now turn. It is titled, "Liar!"
Mind you, this book is science fiction, so you will have to allow your imaginations to work. In the story "Liar!" a robot develops the ability to read minds. The people in the story are trying to figure out why to begin with, but they soon find themselves entangled in a massive web of intrigue. It seems like the robot is lying to them. Theoretically, this should be impossible according to the three laws which govern robot behavior. Those laws are:
Law #1: A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction, or allow a human being to come to harm.
Law #2: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
Law #3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Now, Law #1 is critical to the story "Liar!" A robot may not injure a human being through inaction or allow a human being to come to harm. The robot in the story can read minds, and because it can read the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of those humans, it works diligently to make sure no injury comes to those human beings–even emotional injury. Think about that, and then think about your thoughts and what you desire and who you care about and what you would like to happen to you in the future.
Imagine someone who could read those thoughts and then read the thoughts of others. Imagine what would happen if you asked them about what others were thinking. Oh how nice it would be to find out what others were actually thinking about you. But then realize, the person who could read minds couldn’t injure you even emotionally. Imagine the person who could read minds saying exactly what you wanted to hear so that you felt no emotional pain. Imagine what that would do to you when you found out that you had been lied to. What would happen?
Well, in the short story "Liar!" the robot who actually did this ended up making absolutely no one happy, and when it realized it was actually causing pain by trying to make everyone happy, its brain short circuited and was fried.
Can you see the lesson raise by Asimov? Perhaps he didn’t intend for that lesson to come forward, but it’s pretty obvious to me–if you try to please everyone, you will actually please no one, and you will fry your brain in the process.
But this raises the question: who then are we to please? Who are we to focus on? Ourselves? I think if we focus totally on pleasing ourselves, we become like that lady I spoke about in the hospital. And we certainly cannot try to please everyone? Should we just work on pleasing our family? Our friends? Our boss? But what if they turn into those who abuse our good nature? Who are we to work toward pleasing?
As Christians, we have the answer to that question. It is tackled by St. Paul in the book of Galatians, and we have a portion of that before us this morning. In the opening verses of this book of the Bible, Paul writes:
10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Am I now seeking human approval or God’s approval? Which do you think Paul focuses on?
If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. If there was any doubt, Paul clears it up with that statement. He is not here to please people, and neither are we. We are here to please God. Period.
And what does it mean to please God? What does it mean to make God happy? Well, first off, we need to realize, that we can’t totally please God. All have fallen short of His glory. Even with being redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection, we still don’t stop sinning. We cannot achieve perfection. So, even if we don’t achieve perfection, what do we do? Do we cease trying? Do we stop trying to please God because we know His standards are unattainable?
Let me ask you this: does a baseball player refuse to step up and try to hit the ball even though his or her chances of actually getting a hit are generally about one in three? Does a basketball player stop trying to shoot baskets even though there’s only roughly a 50% chance she or he will make a basket? Does a football player refuse to give his all knowing that on most plays a touchdown is never scored or that he will not score that touchdown? Does a sprinter stop running as fast as he or she can even though he or she knows there is only one winner in the race–and there are others likely faster? No. In each scenario, the athlete strives to do his or her best. The athlete works because every once in a while, a ball is hit, a basket is made, a touchdown is scored, and a time is improved.
And what do you think happens when God sees us doing our best? What do you think happens when He sees us trying to please Him even though we fall short? Do you think He becomes angry? Do you think He grovels and prepares a couple of lightning bolts? No. Not at all. I’m pretty sure He says the same thing to us that He said to Jesus at Jesus’ baptism, "You are my child, with you I am well pleased." Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)