As I reflect upon the wonder of the incarnation I am once again reminded that it is beginning of the victory of Jesus over sin and death. I am in awe of Jesus perfect righteousness; the righteousness that conquers sin.
Perfect Righteousness = Perfect Love for God and Man
Perfect Love for God = Perfect Obedience to God
He always did the Father’s will
John 4:34; 5:30; 8:29
Perfect Love for Man = Perfect Benevolence to Man
He actions were always in mans best interest
(Mark 10:45; John 13:34 )
Perfect Obedience to God = Perfect Sacrifice In Order To Accomplish God's Will (Phil 2:8)
(Hint: My boys never have trouble obeying me when I ask them to do something they WANT to do)
Perfect Benevolence to Man = Perfect Sacrifice for Man - “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for His friends.”
Jesus loving obedience to the Father's will and His loving benevolence towards our need of redemption was PERFECTLY demonstrated by his PERFECT sacrifice. A sacrifice that began with His incarnation, was continually manifested as He lived to serve rather than be served, and culminated in the ultimate sacrifice of laying down His life. PRAISE TO THE PERFECT RIGHTEOUS ONE WHO’S PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS DESTROYED SIN PERFECTLY!!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Some thoughts on Newsweek's Religious Case for gay Marriage
The following are just a few of my thoughts in response to reading Lisa Miller's article, featured on the cover of Newsweek a couple of weeks ago, that claims to establish biblical support for gay marriage. Lisa Miller's article is so full of distortions, inconsistencies, and mischaracterizations that it is hard to cover them all w/o an awfully lengthy post so I am leaving those with an interest in a complete rebuttal a link for further reading.
1. Lisa writes, "First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes."
Maybe Lisa should read the following passages:
Matt. 19:5 ;Lk 18:29; 1Cor. 7:2,3-4; Eph 5; 1 Timothy 3:2.12
In addition to the specific verses cited above Lisa might be interested in doing a search of all the NT references to marriage. If she did she would find that every one is either explicitly or implicitly about monogamous heterosexual marriage. One of Lisa's egregious mistakes is to suggest that unless the Bible provides us with a dictionary type definition of a term it therefore leaves the term undefined.
2. Lisa writes, "The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family." She picks up this theme later writing, "He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me..." Her attempt to paint Jesus as being indifferent or even opposed, to marriage & family is pitiful. She completely ignores Jesus strong affirmation of marriage demonstrated in his emphatic condemnation of divorce. Her distortion of Paul's view of marriage is also shameful.
She makes no attempt to understand the comments of Paul's, which she so selectively cites, in their context (See Prof. Gagnon's response) and she ignores Paul's high view of marriage expressed in Ephesians 5: 25-33. After reading Paul's admonition to husbands, calling on them to love their wives to the point of being willing to die for them, would Lisa still feel Paul's teaching expressed only a "lukewarm endorsement of a treasured institution". Does Paul's instruction to husbands to "love their wives as their own bodies" sound like someone who believed marriage was simply a means for a man to relieve his sexual frustration? Neither did she take the time to mention what other NT books say about marriage, like, "Marriage should be honored by all..." (Hebrews 13:4)
What troubled me almost as much as her distortions of scripture was her own glaring inconsistency. She apparently can't decide from sentence to sentence whether we should have great respect or utter contempt for Jesus in particular and the Bible generally. When scripture agrees with her it is profound but when it doesn't it is outdated. Consider these quotes from the article:
"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs"."
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdfhttp://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf
Here is a quote from Prog. gagnon taken from the link above:
"Scripture’s male-female prerequisite for marriage and its attendant rejection of homosexual behavior is pervasive throughout both Testaments of Scripture (i.e. it is everywhere presumed in sexual discussions even when not explicitly mentioned); it is absolute (i.e. no exceptions are ever given, unlike even incest and polyamory); it is strongly proscribed (i.e. every mention of it in Scripture indicates that it is regarded as a foundational violation of sexual ethics); and it is countercultural (i.e. we know of no other culture in the ancient Near East or Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin more consistently and strongly opposed to homosexual practice). If this doesn’t qualify as a core value in Scripture's sexual ethics, there is no such thing as a core value in any religious or philosophical tradition. "
1. Lisa writes, "First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes."
Maybe Lisa should read the following passages:
Matt. 19:5 ;Lk 18:29; 1Cor. 7:2,3-4; Eph 5; 1 Timothy 3:2.12
In addition to the specific verses cited above Lisa might be interested in doing a search of all the NT references to marriage. If she did she would find that every one is either explicitly or implicitly about monogamous heterosexual marriage. One of Lisa's egregious mistakes is to suggest that unless the Bible provides us with a dictionary type definition of a term it therefore leaves the term undefined.
2. Lisa writes, "The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family." She picks up this theme later writing, "He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me..." Her attempt to paint Jesus as being indifferent or even opposed, to marriage & family is pitiful. She completely ignores Jesus strong affirmation of marriage demonstrated in his emphatic condemnation of divorce. Her distortion of Paul's view of marriage is also shameful.
She makes no attempt to understand the comments of Paul's, which she so selectively cites, in their context (See Prof. Gagnon's response) and she ignores Paul's high view of marriage expressed in Ephesians 5: 25-33. After reading Paul's admonition to husbands, calling on them to love their wives to the point of being willing to die for them, would Lisa still feel Paul's teaching expressed only a "lukewarm endorsement of a treasured institution". Does Paul's instruction to husbands to "love their wives as their own bodies" sound like someone who believed marriage was simply a means for a man to relieve his sexual frustration? Neither did she take the time to mention what other NT books say about marriage, like, "Marriage should be honored by all..." (Hebrews 13:4)
What troubled me almost as much as her distortions of scripture was her own glaring inconsistency. She apparently can't decide from sentence to sentence whether we should have great respect or utter contempt for Jesus in particular and the Bible generally. When scripture agrees with her it is profound but when it doesn't it is outdated. Consider these quotes from the article:
"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs"."
"In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace....Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."
"If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says."
This is truly amazing!
Lisa Miller decries the attempt to define marriage as consisting of one man and one woman as a failure to meet the Bible's true message of "acceptance for all". But then, without so much as blushing, she smuggles in her own definition of marriage: homosexual or heterosexual monogamy. She can appeal to the Bible in defense of the "value of monogamy" and the necessity to "bind ourselves in loving pairs" but she doesn't extend the same privilege to those who appeal to the Bible in defense of heterosexual monogamy. In other words, Lisa wags her finger at those who are unwilling to reach out and include those "on the margins" while clearly expressing her own preference for monogamous marriage. Wait a minute, Lisa, what about all the bi-sexuals in the land? What about the polygamists? Why don't they deserve a place at the marriage table? What happened to the message of inclusiveness? Since she quotes Terry Davis in an affirming manner, is Lisa, like Mr. Davis, against promiscuity. Come on now Lisa, what happened to all the talk about "accepting everyone"? This "hate speech" against all the nice promiscuous people out there has got to stop! I also find it odd that Lisa can conclude so confidently that children are harmed when we cease to bond in loving pairs while failing to recognize, despite the abundant evidence, that children need both a mother and a father. The article should more appropriately be titled "The religious case for Lisa Miller's Vision of Marriage".
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdfhttp://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf
Here is a quote from Prog. gagnon taken from the link above:
"Scripture’s male-female prerequisite for marriage and its attendant rejection of homosexual behavior is pervasive throughout both Testaments of Scripture (i.e. it is everywhere presumed in sexual discussions even when not explicitly mentioned); it is absolute (i.e. no exceptions are ever given, unlike even incest and polyamory); it is strongly proscribed (i.e. every mention of it in Scripture indicates that it is regarded as a foundational violation of sexual ethics); and it is countercultural (i.e. we know of no other culture in the ancient Near East or Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin more consistently and strongly opposed to homosexual practice). If this doesn’t qualify as a core value in Scripture's sexual ethics, there is no such thing as a core value in any religious or philosophical tradition. "
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Who I am, Whose I am, WHO HE IS
I am posting the following in response to a conversation I just had with a fellow minister whom I love very much. I hope it will encourage all who read it to serve the Lord with gladness.
Moses encounter w/ God in the burning bush in Exodus 3 reminds me of two misperceptions I must guard against or run the risk of failing to fulfill God’s call on my life. The first issue is related to his perception of himself and the second is related to his perception of ministry.
Moses misperception about himself is revealed in two phrases which he uttered. The first was a statement he made about himself and the second, a question he asked about himself. He said, “Here am I” but he then asked “who am I?” Moses knew where he was but he didn’t know who he was. In this passage I discover that Moses identity crisis resulted from defining himself in terms of his gifts and position, or perhaps more accurately, in terms of his perceived lack of giftedness and lack of position. His response to God’s call was, “Who am I that I should go to Pharoah?”; the obvious underlying thought being, “I have no title, power, or authority, I am just a shepherd in Midian.
Later his argument was, “I can’t go. I’m not a gifted speaker”. But it’s not like God didn’t know about Moses lack of position and his speech impediment. We don’t find God responding, “You know, Moses, you’ve got me thinking. I completely overlooked the fact that you aren’t the leader of a great nation with a powerful military force. I also forgot about your speech impediment. I don’t know what I was thinking.” But Moses lack of position & giftedness wasn’t an issue to God. I’ll get to why in a moment.
What lies at the heart of Moses identity crisis is his failure to define himself primarily, and ultimately, in terms of whose He was. He was asking the question, “Who am I?” when the real issue was not who he was, but whose he was. When God began to speak to Moses he revealed Himself in terms of His relationship to Moses. He said, “I am the God of your father…” which meant I am YOUR God. You belong to me. My identity needs to be wrapped up in my relationship to God as his child. Moses went wrong by defining himself in terms of his function/personality/position instead of his relationship to God. There will always be reasons to be insecure if we define ourselves in terms of function/personality/position, but never any reason when defined in terms of our relationship to God as his children. Our sense of identity, of who we are, has to be firmly grounded in whose we are.
The second issue that hindered Moses was his perception of ministry as being something God was calling him to go and do rather than as allowing God to do His work through him. Moses retort, “Who am I to go and deliver the Israelites?” was based on the faulty assumption that he was the deliverer. God said, “I have come down to rescue them…” If Moses was the deliverer than position & natural ability might have been critical. But God was going to rescue them, and he chose Moses to be his instrument. Moses reluctance to obey was due to the fact that he was more concerned with who he was, or wasn’t, rather than who God was! The locus of Moses faith was in himself, not God! There is a world of difference between viewing ministry as something we are doing for God as opposed to something God is doing through us! In the former case the effectiveness or success relies upon us and in the latter it relies upon God. I, personally, am much more comfortable with it relying upon God. The ministry should be about who God is rather than who we are!
In short, we need to move from focusing on thoughts of “who I am” to “whose I am” and “who He is.” Our understanding of the first will be faulty & problematic unless built upon the foundation of the others.
Dear Lord,
Help me to always ground my identity (who I am) in my relationship to You as Your Son (whose I am). Help me understand how great a love has been bestowed upon me that I should be called a child of God! Help me to always be more concerned & consumed with knowing who you are than who I am. May my God-consciousness be far greater than my self-consciousness.
Moses encounter w/ God in the burning bush in Exodus 3 reminds me of two misperceptions I must guard against or run the risk of failing to fulfill God’s call on my life. The first issue is related to his perception of himself and the second is related to his perception of ministry.
Moses misperception about himself is revealed in two phrases which he uttered. The first was a statement he made about himself and the second, a question he asked about himself. He said, “Here am I” but he then asked “who am I?” Moses knew where he was but he didn’t know who he was. In this passage I discover that Moses identity crisis resulted from defining himself in terms of his gifts and position, or perhaps more accurately, in terms of his perceived lack of giftedness and lack of position. His response to God’s call was, “Who am I that I should go to Pharoah?”; the obvious underlying thought being, “I have no title, power, or authority, I am just a shepherd in Midian.
Later his argument was, “I can’t go. I’m not a gifted speaker”. But it’s not like God didn’t know about Moses lack of position and his speech impediment. We don’t find God responding, “You know, Moses, you’ve got me thinking. I completely overlooked the fact that you aren’t the leader of a great nation with a powerful military force. I also forgot about your speech impediment. I don’t know what I was thinking.” But Moses lack of position & giftedness wasn’t an issue to God. I’ll get to why in a moment.
What lies at the heart of Moses identity crisis is his failure to define himself primarily, and ultimately, in terms of whose He was. He was asking the question, “Who am I?” when the real issue was not who he was, but whose he was. When God began to speak to Moses he revealed Himself in terms of His relationship to Moses. He said, “I am the God of your father…” which meant I am YOUR God. You belong to me. My identity needs to be wrapped up in my relationship to God as his child. Moses went wrong by defining himself in terms of his function/personality/position instead of his relationship to God. There will always be reasons to be insecure if we define ourselves in terms of function/personality/position, but never any reason when defined in terms of our relationship to God as his children. Our sense of identity, of who we are, has to be firmly grounded in whose we are.
The second issue that hindered Moses was his perception of ministry as being something God was calling him to go and do rather than as allowing God to do His work through him. Moses retort, “Who am I to go and deliver the Israelites?” was based on the faulty assumption that he was the deliverer. God said, “I have come down to rescue them…” If Moses was the deliverer than position & natural ability might have been critical. But God was going to rescue them, and he chose Moses to be his instrument. Moses reluctance to obey was due to the fact that he was more concerned with who he was, or wasn’t, rather than who God was! The locus of Moses faith was in himself, not God! There is a world of difference between viewing ministry as something we are doing for God as opposed to something God is doing through us! In the former case the effectiveness or success relies upon us and in the latter it relies upon God. I, personally, am much more comfortable with it relying upon God. The ministry should be about who God is rather than who we are!
In short, we need to move from focusing on thoughts of “who I am” to “whose I am” and “who He is.” Our understanding of the first will be faulty & problematic unless built upon the foundation of the others.
Dear Lord,
Help me to always ground my identity (who I am) in my relationship to You as Your Son (whose I am). Help me understand how great a love has been bestowed upon me that I should be called a child of God! Help me to always be more concerned & consumed with knowing who you are than who I am. May my God-consciousness be far greater than my self-consciousness.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Gospel: Forgiveness, Fulfillment, AND Freedom
In his book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev., Mark Driscoll asks the question, "Will you proclaim a gospel of forgiveness, fulfillment or freedom?" He goes on to suggest that traditional, contemporary, and emerging churches differ in how they present the gospel; traditional churches present a gospel of forgiveness, contemporary churches present a gospel of fulfillment, and emerging churches present a gospel of freedom."
If I am reading Mark correctly, he agrees that the "gospel of forgivenss" is faithful to scripture but he seems to suggest it is no longer relevant. While "it made sense to most people at one time" today it "seems judgmental, mean-spirited, naive, and narrow-minded to the ever growing number of people who don't understand the basic tenets of Christianity". He suggests that correcting this misunderstanding of the gospel of forgiveness will take "months or years".
The better approach therefore is to proclaim the gospel of freedom, which apparently is more comprehensible to the mind-set, and palatable to the tastes, of the younger postmodern generation. The gospel of freedom emphasizes sins' destructive effect upon ourselves and "God's good creation". It is good news because through Jesus we are liberated from Satan, sin and death.
I enjoyed Mark's analysis of the distorted gospel of fulfillment. He is correct that many churches have bought into the misguided self-esteem movement and have preached a gospel that places man at the center rather than God. I don't think he has overstated the case when he describes this gospel as one where "God exists to worship us". He sums up the problem with the contemporary gospel of fulfillment nicely when he writes, "...it does not call me to God's mission but rather calls God to my mission".
If I am reading Mark correctly, he agrees that the "gospel of forgivenss" is faithful to scripture but he seems to suggest it is no longer relevant. While "it made sense to most people at one time" today it "seems judgmental, mean-spirited, naive, and narrow-minded to the ever growing number of people who don't understand the basic tenets of Christianity". He suggests that correcting this misunderstanding of the gospel of forgiveness will take "months or years".
The better approach therefore is to proclaim the gospel of freedom, which apparently is more comprehensible to the mind-set, and palatable to the tastes, of the younger postmodern generation. The gospel of freedom emphasizes sins' destructive effect upon ourselves and "God's good creation". It is good news because through Jesus we are liberated from Satan, sin and death.
I enjoyed Mark's analysis of the distorted gospel of fulfillment. He is correct that many churches have bought into the misguided self-esteem movement and have preached a gospel that places man at the center rather than God. I don't think he has overstated the case when he describes this gospel as one where "God exists to worship us". He sums up the problem with the contemporary gospel of fulfillment nicely when he writes, "...it does not call me to God's mission but rather calls God to my mission".
While I agree with some of his insights I see a number of problems. The biggest problem is that his question sets up a false antithesis. It implies that we need to choose between proclaiming a gospel of forgiveness, freedom, OR fulfillment when, in fact, the good news (gospel) that Jesus came to bring is that we can have all three through Him. The gospel is about forgiveness AND freedom AND fulfillment, although fulfillment needs to be defined scripturally.
I also have to disagree with the notion that the we should present the gospel as freedom from Satan, sin, and death RATHER than as the gift of forgiveness from the God we have personally offended. I don't believe those who recoil from the gospel of forgiveness for the reasons stated above will be any more receptive to the true gospel of freedom. To preach the gospel of freedom faithfully means to present it as Paul does: to be free from sin is to be free from the bondage to our own fleshly desires and to be simultaneosly "enslaved to God" (Romans 6). It is not freedom from God's authority, but the freedom to be able to submit to God's authority. Contemporary resistance to the gospel is primarily due to a distaste for all authority outside the self. I don't see how the gospel of freedom, defined properly, is any more palatable to the tastes of people today then the gospel of forgiveness is.
While we must guard against the man-centered gospel that is common today we shouldn't overlook the fact that true fulfillment is an important aspect of the gospel. Jesus told his disciples that he had peace to give them that the world couldn't give. He prayed to the Father that they would have the full measure of His joy within them. He pours out the love of God in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. His will is that our lives would be fruitful. I can't think of a better definition of fulfillment than a life of love, joy, peace, and fruitfulness. Of course, we need to explain that we must abide in Christ to experience these, but it is absolutely appropriate to speak of the gospel of fulfillment. There is only a problem when we distort the true meaning of fulfillment and equate it with material possessions and worldly status and position.
For years I have taught about the "diamond of salvation." There are many facets to salvation just as there are to a diamond. Each facet is a different view of a singular reality, and every view is beautiful. Justification speaks of forgiveness, redemption speaks of freedom, reconciliation speaks of fellowship, adoption speaks of family, and regeneration speaks of the fulfillment of the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The bottom line is that every aspect of the gospel message needs to be proclaimed.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
For my pastor friends that have asked me about my thoughts concerning the emerging church I am listing a couple of links that echo my thoughts on the "movement". The first is a primer on the emerging church by Justin Taylor that I believe is accurate in its' description and analysis. The second is a youtube video with Al Mohler & Ravi Z. I thought my friend Jeff Fulford would especially enjoy Ravi's comments. In a future post I will share some thoughts on JT's article.
http://9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2249226,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6uxCch7oc
http://9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2249226,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6uxCch7oc
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Transforming Convictions
The other day I was praying about what I, as a pastor, need to do to effectively motivate the people I lead to behave as true disciples. I was reminded of a very well articulated assessment by Dallas Willard of the challenge before us. In The Divine Conspiracy, he writes,
“One of the greatest weaknesses in our teaching and leadership today is that we
spend so much time on trying to do things good people are supposed to do, without changing what they really believe…But in our culture there is a severe illusion about faith, or belief. It is one that has been produced by many centuries of people professing, as a cultural identification, to believe things they do not really believe at all. That goes hand in hand with the predominance of what was called client, or consumer, Christianity earlier. Thus there arises the misunderstanding that human life is not governed by belief.
We often speak of people not living up to their faith. But the cases in which we say this are not really cases of people behaving otherwise than they believe. They are cases in which genuine beliefs are made obvious by what people do…And the reason why clergy and others have to invest so much effort into getting people to do things is that they are working against the actual beliefs of the actual people they are trying to lead…What has to be done, instead of trying to drive people to do what we think they are supposed to do, is to be honest about what we and others really believe.” Pgs 307-8
Dallas’ words place us on the right path. Now the challenge is this: How do we influence others to believe, with real conviction, the truth of God’s word. Isn’t this challenge all the more difficult when dealing with people who question the ability for us to know, with any degree of certainty, what is true? If we intend to convince people that what they presently believe and trust in is not true we must convince them that we have some source we can turn to that provides us with the ability to discern truth from error. The bottom line: We must restore confidence and conviction that the Bible is the revealed word of God, that it communicates truth (i.e. that which corresponds with reality) and as such, is worthy of careful study and application?
Dallas is write to suggest that until we change beliefs we will not significantly alter behavior.
How do we refute faulty belief systems and create strong convictions about what is true?
1. We must make every effort to persuade. How will they believe what they have never heard?
Rom. 10:13
2. We must rely on the Holy Spirit. He convicts the world. He guides into all truth. We are not self-sufficient for the task. We need Him!! They need Him!!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Response to Rob Bell's "Bullhorn Guy"
A pastor friend sent me the following links: The first is Rob Bell’s Nooma video of “Bullhorn Guy” and a the second is a video parody called “Bullwhip Guy”. http://www.paulkaiser.net/thewayofthemaster/videoclips/Bullhorn_Guy.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9XorvaC4qs
My thoughts on Bell’s “bullhorn guy” talk are as follows.
Bell, via this video, appears to argue against evangelistic messages that confront sin, demand repentance, warn of eternal punishment, and instill in people the fear of God. In doing so he sets up a straw man that is rather easy to knock down – The “bullhorn guy”. I refer to the bullhorn guy as a straw man, not because bullhorn guys don’t exist, but because they are so rare in contemporary Christian culture. I mean come on, how many Christians preach hell-fire and brimstone? Does Bell really believe there are many, if any, "bullhorn guys" in his audience? I haven't come across one book or seminar on evangelism in 20 years of ministry that advocates the "bullhorn" approach. What Bell's video does – whether or not he intends to do so or not – is equate Christians who lovingly yet firmly confront sinners with the severe consequences of sin and the need for God’s grace with the “bullhorn guys” who make us all cringe. No clear thinking Christian would ever want to be labeled a “bullhorn guy”.
Bell’s approach effectively shames into silence those who preach sin, repentance, and judgment. What is so ironic is that currently, the great strategy of the Devil in the Western world has been to intimidate via shame those who attempt to awaken people to the reality of sin and the need of justification and regeneration. This shaming strategy is often employed by immature children and young people in order to avoid correction and punishment. I am right now thinking of an incident when I disciplined a teenager for breaking the rules at a church retreat. When he was told he was going home he yelled, "You're the reason I am never going to church again." Although I didn't give in to this manipulative attempt to influence me to revoke the punishment, it did make me hesitate and second-guess my decision. "Was I too harsh?" "Should I change my mind?" Everyday immature young people use the "you're mean" strategy in an attempt to make adults feel bad about requiring them to work or punishing their bad behavior. The same strategy is employed by rebellious adults who don't want someone telling them they need to repent. They try to shame the messenger into silence by accusing him of being mean and unloving. Our contemporary, pluralistic culture disdains religious belief with a correcting or judging component. Consequently there is a strong aversion to attempts at religious conversion. The end result is that God is not allowed to speak; what D.A. Carson describes as “the gagging of God” and what David Wells calls the “caging of God” ( See Carson’s The Gagging of God and Well’s God in the Wasteland). The suggestion that people don’t have the right to tell others they are wrong inevitably leads to gagging and caging God since God’s chosen means of communicating is through His people. The following quote, addressing Brian McLaren’s aversion to preaching about hell, by D.A. Carson from Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church relates well to the issue at hand.
“Perhaps…McLaren had to deal with some Elmer Gantry’s who took a vicious delight in describing the torments of the damned. But in today’s Evangelicalism, we are, by and large, in far greater danger of saying much less than Jesus said on this subject than saying too much.” Pg. 169
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9XorvaC4qs
My thoughts on Bell’s “bullhorn guy” talk are as follows.
Bell, via this video, appears to argue against evangelistic messages that confront sin, demand repentance, warn of eternal punishment, and instill in people the fear of God. In doing so he sets up a straw man that is rather easy to knock down – The “bullhorn guy”. I refer to the bullhorn guy as a straw man, not because bullhorn guys don’t exist, but because they are so rare in contemporary Christian culture. I mean come on, how many Christians preach hell-fire and brimstone? Does Bell really believe there are many, if any, "bullhorn guys" in his audience? I haven't come across one book or seminar on evangelism in 20 years of ministry that advocates the "bullhorn" approach. What Bell's video does – whether or not he intends to do so or not – is equate Christians who lovingly yet firmly confront sinners with the severe consequences of sin and the need for God’s grace with the “bullhorn guys” who make us all cringe. No clear thinking Christian would ever want to be labeled a “bullhorn guy”.
Bell’s approach effectively shames into silence those who preach sin, repentance, and judgment. What is so ironic is that currently, the great strategy of the Devil in the Western world has been to intimidate via shame those who attempt to awaken people to the reality of sin and the need of justification and regeneration. This shaming strategy is often employed by immature children and young people in order to avoid correction and punishment. I am right now thinking of an incident when I disciplined a teenager for breaking the rules at a church retreat. When he was told he was going home he yelled, "You're the reason I am never going to church again." Although I didn't give in to this manipulative attempt to influence me to revoke the punishment, it did make me hesitate and second-guess my decision. "Was I too harsh?" "Should I change my mind?" Everyday immature young people use the "you're mean" strategy in an attempt to make adults feel bad about requiring them to work or punishing their bad behavior. The same strategy is employed by rebellious adults who don't want someone telling them they need to repent. They try to shame the messenger into silence by accusing him of being mean and unloving. Our contemporary, pluralistic culture disdains religious belief with a correcting or judging component. Consequently there is a strong aversion to attempts at religious conversion. The end result is that God is not allowed to speak; what D.A. Carson describes as “the gagging of God” and what David Wells calls the “caging of God” ( See Carson’s The Gagging of God and Well’s God in the Wasteland). The suggestion that people don’t have the right to tell others they are wrong inevitably leads to gagging and caging God since God’s chosen means of communicating is through His people. The following quote, addressing Brian McLaren’s aversion to preaching about hell, by D.A. Carson from Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church relates well to the issue at hand.
“Perhaps…McLaren had to deal with some Elmer Gantry’s who took a vicious delight in describing the torments of the damned. But in today’s Evangelicalism, we are, by and large, in far greater danger of saying much less than Jesus said on this subject than saying too much.” Pg. 169
Friday, September 12, 2008
God is Love
Yesterday I took part in some interviews of ministerial candidates. I asked one of the candidates if there were any doctrinal or theological issues of particular importance facing ministers today. The concern he mentioned was the tendency today to over-emphasize God's love to the neglect of God's holiness. I was pleased that he recognized this prevalent distortion of the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16). I can't count the number of times I have heard people use this verse to define God as "love". The statement ‘God is love’ is not defining God, but describing Him. Instead of defining God according to our understanding (romantically-laden) of the word “love” we need to define “love” according to God. We would do better to stop using the word love to define God and spend more time learning God's definition of love!
Monday, September 8, 2008
Great Quote
“It is one of the remarkable features of contemporary church life that so many are attempting to heal the church by tinkering with its structures, its services, its public face.
This is clear evidence that modernity has successfully palmed off one of its great deceits on us, convincing us that God Himself is secondary to organization and image, that the church’s health lies in its flow charts, its convenience, and its offerings rather than in its inner life, its spiritual authenticity, the toughness of its moral intentions, its understanding of what it means to have God’s Word in this world. Those who do not see this are out of touch with the deep realities of life, mistaking changes on the surface for changes in the deep waters which flow beneath. An inspired group of marketers might find a way of reviving a flagging business by modifying its image and offerings, but the matters of the heart, the matters of God, are not susceptible to such cosmetic alteration. The world’s business and God’s business are two different things.
Davis Wells, God in the Wasteland
This is clear evidence that modernity has successfully palmed off one of its great deceits on us, convincing us that God Himself is secondary to organization and image, that the church’s health lies in its flow charts, its convenience, and its offerings rather than in its inner life, its spiritual authenticity, the toughness of its moral intentions, its understanding of what it means to have God’s Word in this world. Those who do not see this are out of touch with the deep realities of life, mistaking changes on the surface for changes in the deep waters which flow beneath. An inspired group of marketers might find a way of reviving a flagging business by modifying its image and offerings, but the matters of the heart, the matters of God, are not susceptible to such cosmetic alteration. The world’s business and God’s business are two different things.
Davis Wells, God in the Wasteland
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Indefensible but not unbelievable
The following link is a must see report on CNN concerning Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Here is the best evidence of someone who is so motivated by prior idealogical committments (i.e. keeping Roe v. Wade on the books) that he is unable to do the right, or moral, thing even in the most obvious situations. This is further evidence that, for Obama anyway, the issue is not a question of when human life begins, but whether the rights of a privileged class trump the rights of the weak. Obama's decision in effect says, "Infants should not be protected, and can be allowed to die, if it is necessary to protect Roe V. Wade." That is OUTRAGEOUS AND INDEFENSIBLE, but not unbelievable!
If you are an Obama supporter and leary of right-wing distortions consider that this is CNN reporting, not FOX news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ACR0cjdiI
If you are an Obama supporter and leary of right-wing distortions consider that this is CNN reporting, not FOX news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ACR0cjdiI
Friday, August 15, 2008
Culturally Relevant and Biblically Faithful: Are we in the world but not of it?
When the ministers in our section (South Central Section (NY) Assemblies of God) meet in September our theme will be:
Christianity and Contemporary Culture: Responding to the need to be culturally relevant and biblically faithful.
The following scriptures will frame the discussion.
1. The first is John 17:13-18
In this passage Jesus states:
a. That it is not his desire for the Father to take the disciples out of the world.
b.That he has sent them into the world.
These two statements speak to our need to “be in the world” (i.e. culturally relevant)
At the same time Jesus:
a. States twice that the disciples are not of the world.
b. Asks the father to keep them from the evil one and sanctify them by the truth.
These statements relate to the need to be set apart by the truth and therefore, not of the world(i.e. biblically faithful).
Questions to think about
1. What does it mean to be “in the world”?
2. What does it mean to live as people who are “not of the world” and set apart by the truth?
2. The second passage is Romans 12:1, 2.
It speaks to our need to be biblically faithful – “Do not conform to this world…be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”
3. The third passage is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.
It speaks to the need to be culturally relevant – “I have become all things to all people, that I may by all means save some”
Paul, the author of both Romans 12:1,2 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, did not do the very thing he asked others not to do (i.e. “conform to the world”). In other words, there is a need to relate to people in their own social/cultural setting without compromising the truth and thus failing to conform to God’s will (Rom.12:2b).
Questions to think about
1. How are we doing at fulfilling the imperatives of Romans 12:2?
2. How do Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 apply to us? Are we using all possible means to save people? Have we allowed personal traditions and/or preferences to become hindrances to people becoming part of the church? Have we wrongly assumed that the “way we have always done things” is “the way God wants us to do things”? Are we willing to accommodate to the culture where no scriptural principle is at stake?
In the past month I have had five conversations with non-Christians about faith. One is 21 yrs old, three others are in their thirties and the fifth is a 40-something. Not one of them have ever had anyone take the time to explain Christianity to them. I am finding this ignorance of Christianity more and more. Are we really living as the "sent ones" Jesus said his disciples would be?!
Christianity and Contemporary Culture: Responding to the need to be culturally relevant and biblically faithful.
The following scriptures will frame the discussion.
1. The first is John 17:13-18
In this passage Jesus states:
a. That it is not his desire for the Father to take the disciples out of the world.
b.That he has sent them into the world.
These two statements speak to our need to “be in the world” (i.e. culturally relevant)
At the same time Jesus:
a. States twice that the disciples are not of the world.
b. Asks the father to keep them from the evil one and sanctify them by the truth.
These statements relate to the need to be set apart by the truth and therefore, not of the world(i.e. biblically faithful).
Questions to think about
1. What does it mean to be “in the world”?
2. What does it mean to live as people who are “not of the world” and set apart by the truth?
2. The second passage is Romans 12:1, 2.
It speaks to our need to be biblically faithful – “Do not conform to this world…be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”
3. The third passage is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.
It speaks to the need to be culturally relevant – “I have become all things to all people, that I may by all means save some”
Paul, the author of both Romans 12:1,2 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, did not do the very thing he asked others not to do (i.e. “conform to the world”). In other words, there is a need to relate to people in their own social/cultural setting without compromising the truth and thus failing to conform to God’s will (Rom.12:2b).
Questions to think about
1. How are we doing at fulfilling the imperatives of Romans 12:2?
2. How do Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 apply to us? Are we using all possible means to save people? Have we allowed personal traditions and/or preferences to become hindrances to people becoming part of the church? Have we wrongly assumed that the “way we have always done things” is “the way God wants us to do things”? Are we willing to accommodate to the culture where no scriptural principle is at stake?
In the past month I have had five conversations with non-Christians about faith. One is 21 yrs old, three others are in their thirties and the fifth is a 40-something. Not one of them have ever had anyone take the time to explain Christianity to them. I am finding this ignorance of Christianity more and more. Are we really living as the "sent ones" Jesus said his disciples would be?!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Faithfulness & Fruitfulness
In my last post I reviewed an article by Ed Stetzer on the future of the church and its mission.
In the article he raises the question, “What must the American church become and do in this season of decline? The question seems to presuppose that the decline is the result of a failure on the part of the church, rather than the result of an increasing hardness of heart toward God and the gospel.
A question that ought to be asked prior to the one above is, “What are the reasons for the decline in attendance at church services, the decline in commitment among those who do attend, and the decline in the number of people who believe in the fundamental teachings of scripture?
In Stetzer’s article, as well as in most others I have read that deal with the stated crisis, the cause for the decline is laid at the doorstep of the church. I believe we need a more comprehensive analysis of the cause than is usually offered. We ought to ask the following questions:
These questions can be divided into two categories. The first category deals with the responsibility that the church bears and the second deals with the responsibility that unbelievers bear.
The Responsibility of Christians to Be Faithful Witnesses of Christ
The questions in this category can be divided into two sub-categories:
1. Have we allowed personal traditions and/or preferences to become hindrances to people becoming part of the church? Have we wrongly assumed that the “way we have always done things” is “the way God wants us to do things”? In other words, “Is our failure at a structural/strategical/methodological level?”
2. Do our churches adequately represent the picture created for us in the NT of what the church is supposed to be? Are we lacking the character qualities (i.e. The Fruit of the Spirit) and spiritual power that Christ has afforded us through the Spirit? Is there a lack of authenticity in the life of the church that turns off those who appreciate, and would otherwise be open to the gospel message? Are we too worldy and disobedient? Are we not abiding in the vine and therefore unable to produce fruit (John 15:1-5)!!! In other words, “Is our failure on a spiritual level?”
I am aware that I have left myself open to the criticism that I have created a false dichotomy between that which is "structural and strategical" and that which is "spiritual". While my labels might be deficient, I believe there is a legitimate distinction to be made between the work of the ministry and the condition of the minister's heart. There is no doubt in my mind that a minister, or lay person for that matter, can work diligently at preaching, teaching, and administering in the local church while his heart is far from the Lord!
The Responsibility of the Non-Christian to RESPOND!
Do we operate under the tacit assumption that as long as we are faithful in the employing of our gifts and resources as well as faithful in our personal relationship to God non-Christians will necessarily be converted? Is the lack of willingness to repent and believe ALWAYS due to some fault on the part of the church? Hasn’t history clearly demonstrated that some people groups and some individuals are more receptive than others – regardless of the “spiritual quality” of the witness (i.e. Isaiah)? Would the apostles analyze the reasons people reject the gospel in order to figure out what they might have done wrong to the same extant as we do?
I think the obvious answer is that the church bears some blame as do those who have rejected the faith. Our effectiveness at making disciples will always be conditioned by the faithfulness of the church AND the responsiveness or non-responsiveness of the unbeliever.
In the article he raises the question, “What must the American church become and do in this season of decline? The question seems to presuppose that the decline is the result of a failure on the part of the church, rather than the result of an increasing hardness of heart toward God and the gospel.
A question that ought to be asked prior to the one above is, “What are the reasons for the decline in attendance at church services, the decline in commitment among those who do attend, and the decline in the number of people who believe in the fundamental teachings of scripture?
In Stetzer’s article, as well as in most others I have read that deal with the stated crisis, the cause for the decline is laid at the doorstep of the church. I believe we need a more comprehensive analysis of the cause than is usually offered. We ought to ask the following questions:
These questions can be divided into two categories. The first category deals with the responsibility that the church bears and the second deals with the responsibility that unbelievers bear.
The Responsibility of Christians to Be Faithful Witnesses of Christ
The questions in this category can be divided into two sub-categories:
1. Have we allowed personal traditions and/or preferences to become hindrances to people becoming part of the church? Have we wrongly assumed that the “way we have always done things” is “the way God wants us to do things”? In other words, “Is our failure at a structural/strategical/methodological level?”
2. Do our churches adequately represent the picture created for us in the NT of what the church is supposed to be? Are we lacking the character qualities (i.e. The Fruit of the Spirit) and spiritual power that Christ has afforded us through the Spirit? Is there a lack of authenticity in the life of the church that turns off those who appreciate, and would otherwise be open to the gospel message? Are we too worldy and disobedient? Are we not abiding in the vine and therefore unable to produce fruit (John 15:1-5)!!! In other words, “Is our failure on a spiritual level?”
I am aware that I have left myself open to the criticism that I have created a false dichotomy between that which is "structural and strategical" and that which is "spiritual". While my labels might be deficient, I believe there is a legitimate distinction to be made between the work of the ministry and the condition of the minister's heart. There is no doubt in my mind that a minister, or lay person for that matter, can work diligently at preaching, teaching, and administering in the local church while his heart is far from the Lord!
The Responsibility of the Non-Christian to RESPOND!
Do we operate under the tacit assumption that as long as we are faithful in the employing of our gifts and resources as well as faithful in our personal relationship to God non-Christians will necessarily be converted? Is the lack of willingness to repent and believe ALWAYS due to some fault on the part of the church? Hasn’t history clearly demonstrated that some people groups and some individuals are more receptive than others – regardless of the “spiritual quality” of the witness (i.e. Isaiah)? Would the apostles analyze the reasons people reject the gospel in order to figure out what they might have done wrong to the same extant as we do?
I think the obvious answer is that the church bears some blame as do those who have rejected the faith. Our effectiveness at making disciples will always be conditioned by the faithfulness of the church AND the responsiveness or non-responsiveness of the unbeliever.
Friday, August 8, 2008
For church leaders
Here is my review of, and response to, “Writing on the Wall: The Future of the Church and its Mission” by Ed Stetzer, published in the Spring 2008 issue of Enrichment. The Enrichment Journal is a publication of the Assemblies of God and can be found online.
Ed begins the article by offering his observations concerning the condition of the church in North America. The following quotes sum up his observations.
“In North America the church is in decline.”
“The North American church is losing its influence in society and culture.”
“In the current culture, secular spirituality has replaced the church…As leaders we must acknowledge the fact that the masses have decided that our churches do not have the answers to their spiritual questions.”
“The bigger issue is that the practice of Christianity is repelling people from the church.”
An earlier statement in his article clearly implies that, in the author’s opinion, many have rejected the church, not because they are rebellious sinners disinterested in worshiping and serving God but because the church has failed them in some way.
Following his observations and conclusion that the church is experiencing symptoms of spiritual sickness, he offers his diagnosis of the malady.
“I conclude that the church has lost its influence because it has forgotten its mission.”
“The church has lost confidence in the Gospel.”
This second statement is the main point of the article and obviously the author’s main concern. While we don’t find a detailed definition of “the gospel” the heart of it is the message about “a Savior who died on a cross in our place”. His meaning is further clarified by his citing of Luke 24:47: “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations.”
His suggestion that the church has “lost confidence” in the gospel should alarm us all! What he is suggesting, in a somewhat diplomatic way, is that we have redefined Christianity by neglecting, if not outright denying, the very essence of the faith! Consider the following quotes:
“The gospel is about a Savior who died on a cross in our place. These are facts…and they are usually unpalatable to our neighbors. If we do not have confidence in them, then we do not have true faith.” (emphasis mine)
“After all, we must remove roadblocks that keep people from getting to Jesus. But…if strategies and systems replace the core of the gospel, its meaning and power will be lost.” (emphasis mine)
“In an incredible twist of irony, while trying to reach a lost world, many mainline denominations lost their beliefs.” (emphasis mine)
“Herein lies the real danger. We must not replace our confidence in the power of the gospel with a confidence in our own methods and strategies.”
The author does stress the need to be culturally relevant. He speaks of not “pining for methods that no longer work”, and the need to remove cultural roadblocks that hinder evangelism but his main concern is that the church is already, not just in danger of, becoming biblically unfaithful.
I find Ed’s diagnosis of the church’s malady as the loss of confidence in the gospel to be very insightful. It is also very alarming. The suggestion that the evangelical church is suffering from a loss of confidence in the gospel should be understood as a severe indictment. It is a somewhat milder, or perhaps more diplomatic way of saying that we have lost faith in the gospel. If Ed’s diagnosis is correct we need to examine our hearts
and ask ourselves if we can stand with Paul and say, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…”
We should obviously try to remove stumbling blocks that stand in the way of people coming to Christ but often the gospel itself – the message that Christ death on the cross was the remedy for our sin – is the stumbling block: One we dare not touch!
Ed begins the article by offering his observations concerning the condition of the church in North America. The following quotes sum up his observations.
“In North America the church is in decline.”
“The North American church is losing its influence in society and culture.”
“In the current culture, secular spirituality has replaced the church…As leaders we must acknowledge the fact that the masses have decided that our churches do not have the answers to their spiritual questions.”
“The bigger issue is that the practice of Christianity is repelling people from the church.”
An earlier statement in his article clearly implies that, in the author’s opinion, many have rejected the church, not because they are rebellious sinners disinterested in worshiping and serving God but because the church has failed them in some way.
Following his observations and conclusion that the church is experiencing symptoms of spiritual sickness, he offers his diagnosis of the malady.
“I conclude that the church has lost its influence because it has forgotten its mission.”
“The church has lost confidence in the Gospel.”
This second statement is the main point of the article and obviously the author’s main concern. While we don’t find a detailed definition of “the gospel” the heart of it is the message about “a Savior who died on a cross in our place”. His meaning is further clarified by his citing of Luke 24:47: “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations.”
His suggestion that the church has “lost confidence” in the gospel should alarm us all! What he is suggesting, in a somewhat diplomatic way, is that we have redefined Christianity by neglecting, if not outright denying, the very essence of the faith! Consider the following quotes:
“The gospel is about a Savior who died on a cross in our place. These are facts…and they are usually unpalatable to our neighbors. If we do not have confidence in them, then we do not have true faith.” (emphasis mine)
“After all, we must remove roadblocks that keep people from getting to Jesus. But…if strategies and systems replace the core of the gospel, its meaning and power will be lost.” (emphasis mine)
“In an incredible twist of irony, while trying to reach a lost world, many mainline denominations lost their beliefs.” (emphasis mine)
“Herein lies the real danger. We must not replace our confidence in the power of the gospel with a confidence in our own methods and strategies.”
The author does stress the need to be culturally relevant. He speaks of not “pining for methods that no longer work”, and the need to remove cultural roadblocks that hinder evangelism but his main concern is that the church is already, not just in danger of, becoming biblically unfaithful.
I find Ed’s diagnosis of the church’s malady as the loss of confidence in the gospel to be very insightful. It is also very alarming. The suggestion that the evangelical church is suffering from a loss of confidence in the gospel should be understood as a severe indictment. It is a somewhat milder, or perhaps more diplomatic way of saying that we have lost faith in the gospel. If Ed’s diagnosis is correct we need to examine our hearts
and ask ourselves if we can stand with Paul and say, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…”
We should obviously try to remove stumbling blocks that stand in the way of people coming to Christ but often the gospel itself – the message that Christ death on the cross was the remedy for our sin – is the stumbling block: One we dare not touch!
Friday, June 6, 2008
Escaping the Bitterness Trap, Part 2
In order to escape the bitterness trap we need to live in a constant state of awareness of, and appreciation for, the forgiveness granted us by God through Christ. While this alone can empower us to forgive those who have hurt us, our ability to forgive is enhanced when we live with the firm conviction that God, and God alone, determines the destiny of His people. This point is nowhere better illustrated than in the life of a man named Joseph whose life story is recorded in the book of Genesis.
Joseph was the youngest of 11 sons. When we are introduced to Jacob in chapter 37 of Genesis we read that his brothers were bitter and angry with him for a couple of reasons. First, he told on them. Second, they believed their father treated him more favorably. Third, Joseph told his brothers about a dream he had which indicated that they would one day bow down to him and serve him. While Joseph shouldn’t have expected to be nominated for the “little brother of the year” award he certainly didn’t deserve the treatment he received. They came very close to killing him, but chose instead to sell him to a band of slave-traders.
Joseph was taken to Egypt and sold as a slave to Potiphar, the head of the king’s security force. He performed his duties so well that he was promoted by Potiphar and placed in charge of his whole household. But injustice was about to strike Joseph again. Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph, and when Joseph repeatedly rebuffed her advances she became angry and falsely accused Joseph of raping her. So Joseph landed in prison, but he was able to rise above his circumstances and gain the trust and respect of the prison guards to such a degree that they placed him in charge of the other prisoners.
While in prison Joseph noticed the gloomy countenance of one of his fellow inmates and he inquired as to the reason. The inmate had been troubled by a dream which Joseph interpreted to mean that the prisoner was soon going to be released and restored to his former position in the king’s palace. Joseph asks one simple favor from the man; that he put in a good word for Joseph when he speaks to the king. So what does Joseph receive in return for reaching out to this fellow? We are told that he forgot all about Joseph for two years. Then the king of Egypt had a dream which no one in his court could interpret. The former prisoner, remembering Joseph’s ability to interpret his dream, tells the King that perhaps Joseph is the man he is looking for. The king sent for Joseph, Joseph interpreted the king’s dream as revealing that Egypt and the surrounding the area was going to experience 7 years of abundant harvest followed by 7 years of severe famine. Joseph also counseled the king as to how he should respond to the news. The king, recognizing Joseph’s giftedness and wisdom, placed him in charge of his administration.
Joseph the slave, and then prisoner, became the second most powerful man in all of Egypt.
Years later, when the area was suffering from the great famine which Joseph predicted, the Egyptians needs were amply supplied, but those outside of Egypt were in dire need. Ironically, Joseph’s brothers were sent to Egypt by their father to purchase food. The climax of Joseph’s story is his reunion with his older brothers who had sold him as a slave more than 20 years earlier and who now find themselves at his mercy. They didn’t have a clue that this man they were standing before, the second most powerful man in Egypt, the man who had the ability to supply them with everything they needed but who also had the power to take their lives, was their brother whom they sold as a slave. When Joseph finally disclosed himself to them he did so weeping. At this point in the story, which I have attempted to summarize, it is imperative that I quote some key statements from Joseph.
Joseph said to his brothers, “…do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you…So then it was not you who sent me here but God.” Years later, after Joseph’s father had died, his brothers began to wonder if Joseph had shown mercy to them only so as not to cause grief to their father. Consequently, they became afraid that Joseph might now seek vengeance against them. When Joseph became aware of their concerns he was incredulous. He responded, “Don’t be afraid…You intended to harm me but God intended it for good…the saving of many lives. These statements reveal a perspective seldom held among men; a perspective grounded in the notion that God truly determines the destiny of his children. The inability to let go of bitterness and forgive those who have wronged us is evidence that we have more faith in the power of man to hurt us than the power of God to help us. But when we truly believe that God, not those who have wronged us, determines our destiny why be bitter? God’s intentions will always overrule man’s intentions.
As beautiful as Joseph’s words of forgiveness are, they are not the only evidence pointing to Joseph’s trust in God. I am struck by the response of Joseph immediately following the horrific injustice done to him. When sold as a slave he performed his duties in such a diligent and responsible manner that he was promoted to a position of great privilege. Then, after being falsely accused and unjustly imprisoned, he conducts himself in such a commendable manner that the prison guards placed him in charge. In addition, he showed concern for a depressed fellow prisoner. His actions are totally antithetical to those one would expect from a bitter, angry man. Hurting people tend hurt others. They tend to take their anger out on others. Sometimes they withdraw in depression, their thoughts turned in on themselves as they nurse their wounds. Is it not fair to conclude that Joseph would have never ended up in the place of destiny God intended for him had he not avoided the bitterness trap? Joseph’s story is a wonderful reminder that what happens to us is not nearly as important as our response to what happens to us. Bitterness is a far greater threat to us than the experience of injustice. (see my earlier post, The Bitterness Trap).
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.” Romans 8:28
Joseph was the youngest of 11 sons. When we are introduced to Jacob in chapter 37 of Genesis we read that his brothers were bitter and angry with him for a couple of reasons. First, he told on them. Second, they believed their father treated him more favorably. Third, Joseph told his brothers about a dream he had which indicated that they would one day bow down to him and serve him. While Joseph shouldn’t have expected to be nominated for the “little brother of the year” award he certainly didn’t deserve the treatment he received. They came very close to killing him, but chose instead to sell him to a band of slave-traders.
Joseph was taken to Egypt and sold as a slave to Potiphar, the head of the king’s security force. He performed his duties so well that he was promoted by Potiphar and placed in charge of his whole household. But injustice was about to strike Joseph again. Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph, and when Joseph repeatedly rebuffed her advances she became angry and falsely accused Joseph of raping her. So Joseph landed in prison, but he was able to rise above his circumstances and gain the trust and respect of the prison guards to such a degree that they placed him in charge of the other prisoners.
While in prison Joseph noticed the gloomy countenance of one of his fellow inmates and he inquired as to the reason. The inmate had been troubled by a dream which Joseph interpreted to mean that the prisoner was soon going to be released and restored to his former position in the king’s palace. Joseph asks one simple favor from the man; that he put in a good word for Joseph when he speaks to the king. So what does Joseph receive in return for reaching out to this fellow? We are told that he forgot all about Joseph for two years. Then the king of Egypt had a dream which no one in his court could interpret. The former prisoner, remembering Joseph’s ability to interpret his dream, tells the King that perhaps Joseph is the man he is looking for. The king sent for Joseph, Joseph interpreted the king’s dream as revealing that Egypt and the surrounding the area was going to experience 7 years of abundant harvest followed by 7 years of severe famine. Joseph also counseled the king as to how he should respond to the news. The king, recognizing Joseph’s giftedness and wisdom, placed him in charge of his administration.
Joseph the slave, and then prisoner, became the second most powerful man in all of Egypt.
Years later, when the area was suffering from the great famine which Joseph predicted, the Egyptians needs were amply supplied, but those outside of Egypt were in dire need. Ironically, Joseph’s brothers were sent to Egypt by their father to purchase food. The climax of Joseph’s story is his reunion with his older brothers who had sold him as a slave more than 20 years earlier and who now find themselves at his mercy. They didn’t have a clue that this man they were standing before, the second most powerful man in Egypt, the man who had the ability to supply them with everything they needed but who also had the power to take their lives, was their brother whom they sold as a slave. When Joseph finally disclosed himself to them he did so weeping. At this point in the story, which I have attempted to summarize, it is imperative that I quote some key statements from Joseph.
Joseph said to his brothers, “…do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you…So then it was not you who sent me here but God.” Years later, after Joseph’s father had died, his brothers began to wonder if Joseph had shown mercy to them only so as not to cause grief to their father. Consequently, they became afraid that Joseph might now seek vengeance against them. When Joseph became aware of their concerns he was incredulous. He responded, “Don’t be afraid…You intended to harm me but God intended it for good…the saving of many lives. These statements reveal a perspective seldom held among men; a perspective grounded in the notion that God truly determines the destiny of his children. The inability to let go of bitterness and forgive those who have wronged us is evidence that we have more faith in the power of man to hurt us than the power of God to help us. But when we truly believe that God, not those who have wronged us, determines our destiny why be bitter? God’s intentions will always overrule man’s intentions.
As beautiful as Joseph’s words of forgiveness are, they are not the only evidence pointing to Joseph’s trust in God. I am struck by the response of Joseph immediately following the horrific injustice done to him. When sold as a slave he performed his duties in such a diligent and responsible manner that he was promoted to a position of great privilege. Then, after being falsely accused and unjustly imprisoned, he conducts himself in such a commendable manner that the prison guards placed him in charge. In addition, he showed concern for a depressed fellow prisoner. His actions are totally antithetical to those one would expect from a bitter, angry man. Hurting people tend hurt others. They tend to take their anger out on others. Sometimes they withdraw in depression, their thoughts turned in on themselves as they nurse their wounds. Is it not fair to conclude that Joseph would have never ended up in the place of destiny God intended for him had he not avoided the bitterness trap? Joseph’s story is a wonderful reminder that what happens to us is not nearly as important as our response to what happens to us. Bitterness is a far greater threat to us than the experience of injustice. (see my earlier post, The Bitterness Trap).
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.” Romans 8:28
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Escaping the Bitterness Trap, Part 1
So where does the power to forgive come from? The bible reveals a couple of sources. The primary one is the experience of having received God’s mercy; the forgiveness of our sins through the sacrifice of Jesus.
In Matthew 18 Jesus told a story that shows how an acute awareness of the extent of God’s mercy expressed to us positions us to be able to forgive ALL the wrong done to us. In this story there is a King who had a servant that owed him a debt that the servant could never repay. He pleaded with the king to have mercy and give him a chance to repay. The king showed his servant even more mercy than he sought by completely releasing him from his debt. As soon as this servant left the king’s presence he sought out one of his peers who owed him a debt, which while not insignificant, was nothing compared to the debt he was just released from. Instead of showing any mercy to his friend, he had him thrown in prison until the debt was repaid. How do you think the king reacted when he found out how the one he forgave treated his fellow servant? You bet he was angry! If you want an example of truly righteous indignation, this is it! How dare his servant act so mercilessly after being granted such extravagant mercy! So what did the king do? He withdrew his offer of forgiveness from the servant and had him punished harshly.
What prompted Jesus to tell this story? Matthew tells us that Peter came to Jesus asking how many times he must forgive his brother. Peter’s question could more accurately be interpreted as his wanting to know when he was no longer obligated to forgive. Jesus response to Peter indicates that there is to be no limit to Peter’s willingness to show mercy and forgive. I believe Jesus proceeded to tell the story of the unmerciful servant because he anticipated a question that was brewing in Peter’s mind; the “why” question. The question that all of us ask when instructed to do something we don’t want to do. “Why do I have to forgive?” The “why” question addresses the motivation behind the action and Jesus gave great emphasis in his teaching to the importance of righteous action being righteously motivated. So Jesus was happy to explain to Peter the motivation of the merciful; an acute awareness of, and appreciation for the mercy God has extended to them. The king in Jesus’ story is enraged, not just because the servant was unmerciful. He was indignant because the servant’s lack of mercy showed a total lack of awareness of, and appreciation for, the mercy the king showed him. If the servant really appreciated what was done for him he would have gladly forgiven his fellow servant. Especially since the debt he had been forgiven was so much greater then the debt he was asked to forgive. Here is a point we cannot afford to miss. The servant, whom the king desired to grant mercy, in the end did not receive mercy. Not because the king’s character changed from merciful to unmerciful, but because the servant showed utter contempt for the mercy offered to him. He proved himself unworthy of it. Let me put it another way: The servant did not EXPERIENCE mercy from the king ultimately because he did not TRULY RECEIVE the mercy the king offered him initially! His actions made a mockery of the king’s mercy. His unwillingness to forgive was in essence a rejection of the forgiveness offered him. If he had received the offer of forgiveness with the appreciation commensurate to the gift, he would have been quick to forgive.
What is Jesus trying to tell us? The mercy we are required to extend to others doesn’t compare with the mercy God has extended to us. Therefore, if we live with a constant awareness of, and appreciation for, the incomparable mercy shown to us through Jesus’ sacrificial death we will be empowered to forgive those who have sinned against us. Those who are bitter and hurting tend to hurt others. The hurting hurt, but conversely, the forgiven forgive!
Where does the power to forgive come from? It comes from the experience of being forgiven from all our sins through Jesus Christ. It is an experience of God pouring his mercy into our hearts so that we can pour mercy out to others. You can’t give what you don’t have, but if you have it you can give it!
My next post will address another principle that frees us from the bitterness trap.
In Matthew 18 Jesus told a story that shows how an acute awareness of the extent of God’s mercy expressed to us positions us to be able to forgive ALL the wrong done to us. In this story there is a King who had a servant that owed him a debt that the servant could never repay. He pleaded with the king to have mercy and give him a chance to repay. The king showed his servant even more mercy than he sought by completely releasing him from his debt. As soon as this servant left the king’s presence he sought out one of his peers who owed him a debt, which while not insignificant, was nothing compared to the debt he was just released from. Instead of showing any mercy to his friend, he had him thrown in prison until the debt was repaid. How do you think the king reacted when he found out how the one he forgave treated his fellow servant? You bet he was angry! If you want an example of truly righteous indignation, this is it! How dare his servant act so mercilessly after being granted such extravagant mercy! So what did the king do? He withdrew his offer of forgiveness from the servant and had him punished harshly.
What prompted Jesus to tell this story? Matthew tells us that Peter came to Jesus asking how many times he must forgive his brother. Peter’s question could more accurately be interpreted as his wanting to know when he was no longer obligated to forgive. Jesus response to Peter indicates that there is to be no limit to Peter’s willingness to show mercy and forgive. I believe Jesus proceeded to tell the story of the unmerciful servant because he anticipated a question that was brewing in Peter’s mind; the “why” question. The question that all of us ask when instructed to do something we don’t want to do. “Why do I have to forgive?” The “why” question addresses the motivation behind the action and Jesus gave great emphasis in his teaching to the importance of righteous action being righteously motivated. So Jesus was happy to explain to Peter the motivation of the merciful; an acute awareness of, and appreciation for the mercy God has extended to them. The king in Jesus’ story is enraged, not just because the servant was unmerciful. He was indignant because the servant’s lack of mercy showed a total lack of awareness of, and appreciation for, the mercy the king showed him. If the servant really appreciated what was done for him he would have gladly forgiven his fellow servant. Especially since the debt he had been forgiven was so much greater then the debt he was asked to forgive. Here is a point we cannot afford to miss. The servant, whom the king desired to grant mercy, in the end did not receive mercy. Not because the king’s character changed from merciful to unmerciful, but because the servant showed utter contempt for the mercy offered to him. He proved himself unworthy of it. Let me put it another way: The servant did not EXPERIENCE mercy from the king ultimately because he did not TRULY RECEIVE the mercy the king offered him initially! His actions made a mockery of the king’s mercy. His unwillingness to forgive was in essence a rejection of the forgiveness offered him. If he had received the offer of forgiveness with the appreciation commensurate to the gift, he would have been quick to forgive.
What is Jesus trying to tell us? The mercy we are required to extend to others doesn’t compare with the mercy God has extended to us. Therefore, if we live with a constant awareness of, and appreciation for, the incomparable mercy shown to us through Jesus’ sacrificial death we will be empowered to forgive those who have sinned against us. Those who are bitter and hurting tend to hurt others. The hurting hurt, but conversely, the forgiven forgive!
Where does the power to forgive come from? It comes from the experience of being forgiven from all our sins through Jesus Christ. It is an experience of God pouring his mercy into our hearts so that we can pour mercy out to others. You can’t give what you don’t have, but if you have it you can give it!
My next post will address another principle that frees us from the bitterness trap.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Bitterness Trap
Have you ever been caught in the bitterness trap? Are you presently trapped by resentment and an inability to forgive those who have hurt you? I have good news! You can avoid the trap and you can be freed if presently ensnared.
The bitterness I am referring to is that persistent feeling of resentment or animosity towards those who you perceive have hurt you. It is the painful emotions that result from the failure to forgive. On a few occasions the NT speaks of the ‘snare (trap) of devil’. Bitterness is a trap; a device of the Devil designed to destroy God’s people.
In 2 Corinthians chapter 2 Paul, writing about the need to forgive an offender, warns his readers that by not forgiving they fall victim to the schemes of Satan whereby he is able to gain an advantage over them.
Why is bitterness such a dangerous trap? First of all, bitterness is poison to your mind, emotions, body, and spirit. There are multitudes of people who cannot function as they need to because they are mentally harassed by persistent thoughts about the wrong done to them by others. They are distracted at work and at home. They lose sleep at night because they can’t turn off these harassing thoughts. They are prisoners to the people they can’t forgive. It is bad enough to not be able to focus on tasks at hand, but what’s worse is the emotional pain that accompanies those thoughts. Feelings of anger, depression, jealousy, and rejection are debilitating and can very often lead to physical illness. Of more serious consequence to the Christian are the spiritual affects of bitterness. When we don’t forgive we grieve the Holy Spirit and our fellowship with God is hindered. The bottom line; bitterness is the poison YOU DRINK while waiting for your enemy to die! The second reason the Devil loves to trap people in bitterness is because it makes it easier for him to provoke people to do evil. God desires us to be empowered to forgive so we can fulfill the command of scripture to not be overcome by evil, paying back evil with evil. Instead we are to overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:17,21) A couple of years ago at a NBA game between the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers a fight broke out between players. As one of the Indiana players was lying down on the scorers’ table while the referees were trying to restore order a Detroit fan threw a paper cup with beer at him. The act so provoked the Indiana player that he ran into the stands and began to physically attack the person…he assumed threw the cup at him. As it turned out he attacked the wrong guy! Ironically, while he was getting his revenge against an innocent person, the guy who actually did throw the cup was able to sneak in some cheap shots at him. It would have been very funny if it wasn’t so pathetically sad. How foolish we are made to look when we allow ourselves to be provoked by evil.
The third devastating effect of bitterness is what it does to our relationships. When a person is hurt or offended by another it creates a wall between them. This wall can only be torn down when forgiveness is offered and received. It is impossible to maintain the kind of healthy long-term relationships that are essential for sustaining families, churches, businesses, and communities when individuals are incapable of practicing forgiveness. It has been said that the two certainties in life are death and taxes. Let me add at least one more – the experience of mistreatment or injustice. In case you haven’t figured it out, somebody is going to hurt you! It is a reality in almost every relationship. Forgiveness and reconciliation continually necessary!
Here is the GREAT NEWS! The bible reveals to us that we can, and how we can, be empowered to forgive. My next two posts will address how we can escape the bitterness trap.
The bitterness I am referring to is that persistent feeling of resentment or animosity towards those who you perceive have hurt you. It is the painful emotions that result from the failure to forgive. On a few occasions the NT speaks of the ‘snare (trap) of devil’. Bitterness is a trap; a device of the Devil designed to destroy God’s people.
In 2 Corinthians chapter 2 Paul, writing about the need to forgive an offender, warns his readers that by not forgiving they fall victim to the schemes of Satan whereby he is able to gain an advantage over them.
Why is bitterness such a dangerous trap? First of all, bitterness is poison to your mind, emotions, body, and spirit. There are multitudes of people who cannot function as they need to because they are mentally harassed by persistent thoughts about the wrong done to them by others. They are distracted at work and at home. They lose sleep at night because they can’t turn off these harassing thoughts. They are prisoners to the people they can’t forgive. It is bad enough to not be able to focus on tasks at hand, but what’s worse is the emotional pain that accompanies those thoughts. Feelings of anger, depression, jealousy, and rejection are debilitating and can very often lead to physical illness. Of more serious consequence to the Christian are the spiritual affects of bitterness. When we don’t forgive we grieve the Holy Spirit and our fellowship with God is hindered. The bottom line; bitterness is the poison YOU DRINK while waiting for your enemy to die! The second reason the Devil loves to trap people in bitterness is because it makes it easier for him to provoke people to do evil. God desires us to be empowered to forgive so we can fulfill the command of scripture to not be overcome by evil, paying back evil with evil. Instead we are to overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:17,21) A couple of years ago at a NBA game between the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers a fight broke out between players. As one of the Indiana players was lying down on the scorers’ table while the referees were trying to restore order a Detroit fan threw a paper cup with beer at him. The act so provoked the Indiana player that he ran into the stands and began to physically attack the person…he assumed threw the cup at him. As it turned out he attacked the wrong guy! Ironically, while he was getting his revenge against an innocent person, the guy who actually did throw the cup was able to sneak in some cheap shots at him. It would have been very funny if it wasn’t so pathetically sad. How foolish we are made to look when we allow ourselves to be provoked by evil.
The third devastating effect of bitterness is what it does to our relationships. When a person is hurt or offended by another it creates a wall between them. This wall can only be torn down when forgiveness is offered and received. It is impossible to maintain the kind of healthy long-term relationships that are essential for sustaining families, churches, businesses, and communities when individuals are incapable of practicing forgiveness. It has been said that the two certainties in life are death and taxes. Let me add at least one more – the experience of mistreatment or injustice. In case you haven’t figured it out, somebody is going to hurt you! It is a reality in almost every relationship. Forgiveness and reconciliation continually necessary!
Here is the GREAT NEWS! The bible reveals to us that we can, and how we can, be empowered to forgive. My next two posts will address how we can escape the bitterness trap.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
When God Calls Your Name
Zach was a wealthy man with a serious character issue as well. Much of his wealth was obtained by dishonest means. He lived as a rich man but also a man in rebellion against God; that is until the day Zach heard God call his name. We’ll get back to Zach in a moment.
One of the most illuminating phrases used in the NT to describe a Christian is “the called” (Romans 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:24). Jesus described his mission to save sinners as having “come to call them to repentance” (Luke 5:32). A Christian is one who has become a child of God “by calling” (1 Corinthians 1:2). He has been “called” out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9) and simultaneously “called” according to God’s purpose. In The Call Os Guinness writes, “Calling is the truth that God calls us to Himself so decisively that everything we are, everything we do, and everything we have is invested with a special devotion, dynamism, and direction lived out as a response to His summons and service.”
The story of our friend Zach serves as a wonderful illustration of God’s calling. Zaacheus ( Zach for short) lived in the city of Jericho during Jesus’ day. Jericho was situated along a major trade route in the most fertile part of Judea. As a result it was a prosperous city. It is not surprising to read that Zach was rich. After all, he was a chief tax-collector in a wealthy city where there would naturally be considerable tax income. However, the tax-collectors of Jesus time were known for abusing the system and cheating people by collecting more than they owed. Zach was rich, but he was a bit richer than he ought to have been. On His way to Jerusalem, Jesus passed through Jericho and as usual a crowd had gathered around Him. Zach, who was a rather short fellow, wanted to see Jesus but he couldn’t due to the crowd. Apparently, what Zach had heard about Jesus made him so curious he ran ahead of the crowd and climbed up into a tree to get a look. As Jesus passed by He looked up and said, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” We don’t know the details of the conversation that ensued between Jesus and Zach but what does become clear is that Jesus’ visit to Zach’s house left him a changed man. He repaid (even more than was required by law) those he cheated and began giving to the poor.
The lessons from this story are vital and relevant for us today. First of all, notice that sin doesn’t always feel bad. Zach’s cheating had only served to make him wealthier. Today, pragmatism rules people’s lives. If it works (benefits me!) it must be okay. Our prisons are packed, but what would it be like if all the criminals on the streets and in their offices were caught and imprisoned! It is very possible to get away with sin for a while but in the end the “wages of sin is death”.
The second truth we learn is that Jesus knows us by name. Zach didn’t know Jesus, but Jesus knew Zach. Jesus knows everything about you. He knows your hopes and fears, your thoughts and emotions, what you did yesterday and what you are doing today. He knows your sin. If that is disturbing keep reading!
Jesus loves you despite your sin. Jesus loved Zach. The only recorded incident from Jesus’ stay in Jericho is His encounter with Zach. Could it be that Jesus cared about Zach enough to come to Jericho just for him? Jesus came and died to redeem the whole human race from their fallen sinful nature, but He did it for each individual. He did it for you. If you have not yet heard Him, He is calling you by name through this article! And what is He calling you for? He is calling you so he can come to your house. A person’s home is often used as a metaphor for the person himself. Jesus wasn’t primarily concerned with gaining entrance to Zach’s house, but Zach’s life, his heart.
The final truth from this story is that when Jesus calls us and comes to our house, there is always evidence of His stay. In other words, Jesus comes to our house to do some housecleaning. Confession without conversion and profession without practice seems to be at an all-time high. Remember, Jesus said He came to call sinners to repentance. Zach serves as a great example of Christian conversion. He believed in Jesus, he received Jesus, and he became a follower of Jesus!
One of the most illuminating phrases used in the NT to describe a Christian is “the called” (Romans 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:24). Jesus described his mission to save sinners as having “come to call them to repentance” (Luke 5:32). A Christian is one who has become a child of God “by calling” (1 Corinthians 1:2). He has been “called” out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9) and simultaneously “called” according to God’s purpose. In The Call Os Guinness writes, “Calling is the truth that God calls us to Himself so decisively that everything we are, everything we do, and everything we have is invested with a special devotion, dynamism, and direction lived out as a response to His summons and service.”
The story of our friend Zach serves as a wonderful illustration of God’s calling. Zaacheus ( Zach for short) lived in the city of Jericho during Jesus’ day. Jericho was situated along a major trade route in the most fertile part of Judea. As a result it was a prosperous city. It is not surprising to read that Zach was rich. After all, he was a chief tax-collector in a wealthy city where there would naturally be considerable tax income. However, the tax-collectors of Jesus time were known for abusing the system and cheating people by collecting more than they owed. Zach was rich, but he was a bit richer than he ought to have been. On His way to Jerusalem, Jesus passed through Jericho and as usual a crowd had gathered around Him. Zach, who was a rather short fellow, wanted to see Jesus but he couldn’t due to the crowd. Apparently, what Zach had heard about Jesus made him so curious he ran ahead of the crowd and climbed up into a tree to get a look. As Jesus passed by He looked up and said, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” We don’t know the details of the conversation that ensued between Jesus and Zach but what does become clear is that Jesus’ visit to Zach’s house left him a changed man. He repaid (even more than was required by law) those he cheated and began giving to the poor.
The lessons from this story are vital and relevant for us today. First of all, notice that sin doesn’t always feel bad. Zach’s cheating had only served to make him wealthier. Today, pragmatism rules people’s lives. If it works (benefits me!) it must be okay. Our prisons are packed, but what would it be like if all the criminals on the streets and in their offices were caught and imprisoned! It is very possible to get away with sin for a while but in the end the “wages of sin is death”.
The second truth we learn is that Jesus knows us by name. Zach didn’t know Jesus, but Jesus knew Zach. Jesus knows everything about you. He knows your hopes and fears, your thoughts and emotions, what you did yesterday and what you are doing today. He knows your sin. If that is disturbing keep reading!
Jesus loves you despite your sin. Jesus loved Zach. The only recorded incident from Jesus’ stay in Jericho is His encounter with Zach. Could it be that Jesus cared about Zach enough to come to Jericho just for him? Jesus came and died to redeem the whole human race from their fallen sinful nature, but He did it for each individual. He did it for you. If you have not yet heard Him, He is calling you by name through this article! And what is He calling you for? He is calling you so he can come to your house. A person’s home is often used as a metaphor for the person himself. Jesus wasn’t primarily concerned with gaining entrance to Zach’s house, but Zach’s life, his heart.
The final truth from this story is that when Jesus calls us and comes to our house, there is always evidence of His stay. In other words, Jesus comes to our house to do some housecleaning. Confession without conversion and profession without practice seems to be at an all-time high. Remember, Jesus said He came to call sinners to repentance. Zach serves as a great example of Christian conversion. He believed in Jesus, he received Jesus, and he became a follower of Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)