Blog

by Geoffrey Lentz

¹Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. ²So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ ³Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. ⁴I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ ⁵So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ ⁶He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ ⁷Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ ⁸And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. ⁹And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. ¹⁰“Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. ¹¹If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? ¹²And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? ¹³No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
– Luke 16:1-13 (NRSV)
Presented 9/19/04-Helena United Methodist Church, Helena, North Carolina
Three terrified young people sit in a boardroom in a New York City skyscraper. They are awaiting a decision from one of the richest men in the world. They have been managing his company for the week-or more often than not, mismanaging his company. He singles one of them out—-“You’re fired!” he decrees as he gives his famous cobra hand-gesture. I imagine that all of us are somewhat familiar with this scene in America’s currently most watched TV show-The Apprentice.
This scene is not far off from our gospel lesson today. This is probably Jesus’ most controversial parable. As preachers and teachers have read this scripture throughout the centuries, we have wanted to clean it up and sanitize it. “Surely, this is not the way Jesus told it”, we say to ourselves, “it must mean something else.” We try to apologize for Jesus and explain his message away. We dress up our Jesus in nice clothes-give him some stage makeup, nice bright white teeth, and perfectly styled hair that doesn’t move when the wind blows. The Jesus in our minds is a nice Jesus of Children’s Sunday School class, not the Jesus that turned over the money tables in the temple, not the Jesus that two weeks ago in our scripture reading told us to “hate our family” in comparison to our love for God and the church. No our Jesus is a porcelain doll Jesus-that we can play with when we want to and put back on the shelf. Our Jesus is a Hollywood Jesus-that has all the glamour of a superstar. Our Jesus is a Hallmark Jesus-that gives us sweet syrupy messages to make us feel better. That is why it is so difficult to understand this text. How could our Jesus whom we have so carefully domesticated tell a story as scandalous as this?
Clarence Jordan, the founder of the Koinonia Community in Georgia once said that all of Jesus’ parables are like Trojan horses. If we don’t look closely-all we see is a beautiful safe horse, but if we open up the gates of our hearts and let that Trojan horse within the walls of our lives–bam we are under attach. If that is true of all Jesus’ parables, then it is particularly true of this one.
In order to see this story with new eyes, let’s think of the scripture in a different context. I am going to tell you Jesus’ parable-but the names and faces have been changed to protect the innocent or guilty rather. There was a rich man named Donald Trump. He hired for himself a manager to help run one of his many companies. This manager mismanaged millions of Trump’s dollars and properties. Upon hearing this information, Trump invites the manager into “the boardroom”. There, the manager sits trembling, as Trump demands to hear his account of what happened. “You’re fired!!!” Trump asserts as he gives the cobra signal. Trump then demands that the manager give an accounting or audit of the present situation. As the manger is preparing the files for Trump he thinks to himself-“What am I going to do? I am not strong enough to dig ditches, and I am too ashamed to beg for hand outs.” Then he comes up with a solution. He lets all of Trumps debtors off the hook. Slashing prices-lowering interest rates-cutting and eliminating Trumps profits. “You owe Trump a million dollars—quick let’s change it to 500,000. It’s a half off sell today. And you-you owe Trump 100,000 dollars-hurry up and make it 80,000. The mis-manger goes though the whole ledger “cooking the books”. The story gives us the clue that he is doing this in order to shrewdly secure a job for himself later-in order to make friends and influence people-not to mention get back at the master. All these people that he has let off the hook now owe him. Surely he can cash in with them after his two-week notice has expired.
Wow, what a weird story. The mis-manger has out trumped The Trump. Tricked Trump at his own game of greed. Now we all know what follows-don’t we. The Trump gets angry and the manager goes to Jail and Jesus tells us all to be nice people-and to never color outside the lines-always do what is right. Wrong——-that is what we wish that it said-because that is so much easier to deal with—especially when we white middle-class Americans are the rich managers of the world. But that is not the way Jesus tells the story.
Instead the Trump calls the manager back into the “boardroom” and says-“Wow I am impressed—you really have a keen business sense. You’re hired.” Jesus then tells us that “the children of this world are shrewder in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” Jesus does the unthinkable. He tells us Christians to be like the shrewd manager. He calls us to be shrewd in using all of our resources in creative ways. Eugene Peterson paraphrases the end of this story this way:

Now here’s a surprise: The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way-but for what is right-using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you’ll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior.

Jesus is telling us that we cannot just get by on good behavior. Jesus is telling us to follow the example of the Enron executives using all our skills to get by-to follow the lead of Martha Stewart who illegally swindled her own employees and company-and somehow is still going to be able to keep her company afloat during her relatively short prison stay. All of these people are able to think outside the box. To color outside the lines. Jesus is not asking us to be dishonest like the manager or Enron executives or Martha Stewart, but to be as creative-as shrewd as they are. Although often, the gospel calls us to actions that to the world seem strange or maybe immoral. Jesus effectively says-“Why is it that all the shrewdest and creative people are in the world doing wrong and not in the church doing right.” Why is it that we think that as “children of light” we are never to go against the status quo? Why is it that our politicians on both sides of the isle are able to sway the Nation with words filled with lies, but our churches can’t even sway our communities with preaching the ultimate Truth? Jesus is calling us to put our heads together to come up with creative and innovative ideas to help the Kingdom of God grow. As Luke reminds us—our goal as Christians is different from the world’s goals. We can’t serve both God and money. We can’t serve both God and our own self-interest. As Christians, Jesus is calling us to put all of our shrewdest brain-power behind serving God and neighbor not ourselves.
What might this Christian shrewdness look like? Maybe it would look like Clarence Jordan’s creative vision of a counter-cultural community in which poor and rich, black and white can live together sharing their resources in order to faithfully display the gospel of Christ in the middle of rural Georgia in the heart of a KKK stronghold. The world and even people claiming to be Christians fought against his strange idea-fired bullet rounds through his house threatening his children, but his shrewd creative community challenged and changed the world. But he had to color outside the lines-think outside the box.
Maybe this Christian shrewdness would look like the self-made millionaire, Millard Fulton. He was a work-aholic. He had been extremely shrewd in self-serving-business practices, not all of which were ethical. One day in November 1965, his wife Linda told him that she was going to leave him. In a last ditch effort, he took off work, packed his wife and kids in the car and headed to Florida. On the way, he stopped in Georgia to visit some friends living in the Koinonia Christian Community-he ended up staying a month. His life was changed-his family saved-he put his shrewdness to good use and started one of the most successful ministries in America-Habitat for Humanity. Now he uses his money and life as a tool to help cut prices and interest rates-just like the man in the story. He helps those deep in debt-deserving or not-to own their own home. The consequences have been dramatic-thousands of people lifted out of poverty, but he had to color outside the lines-think outside the box.
Maybe it looks like the United Methodist Church’s boycott of Taco Bell and Mt. Olive Pickles by using shrewd business sense to change labor practices that we believe are contrary to the gospel. Just this week Mt. Olive announced a change in labor practices. The boycott of Mt. Olive is over. But we had to color outside the lines-think outside the box.
Maybe it looks like having free pizza at youth group to draw young people to hear the gospel -even if it looks like bribery.
Maybe it looks like the churches of Person County pulling together all of our resources to make sure that there are no mouths going hungry, no people without beds to sleep in or roofs over their head.
Maybe it looks like new creative evangelism ideas—new ways to invite people to join the kingdom-new ways to teach Sunday school. Hopefully, our New Beginnings initiative is a good start on Christian ingenuity.
Maybe Christian shrewdness is best exemplified by our Savior who creatively used all the resources available-even his own life as a ransom for all our sins as the Epistle lesson proclaims—for each and every one of us-even though we did not deserve it. After all, this strategy of the cross is very strange to the world systems. But this “foolishness of the cross” as Paul calls it is our door to salvation.
Jesus calls us to “shrewd Christian living”. It is time for the church to start thinking outside the box that we have put God in. God has called us not to give just 10% of our income to the church, but to realize that all that we own is a tool to advance the kingdom. God has called us not to give just one or two hours a week in worship and Sunday school, but to see all of our time as a tool to advance the kingdom. Can the church survive the materialist-self-driven-self-centered world that we are in? I hope and believe so. As Christians, we are no longer on the world’s payroll-the world has given us the cobra. It is up to us to shrewdly live out God’s shrewd grace in the world as we dare to think outside the box and color outside the lines.

Geoffrey Douglas Lentz, a native of Pensacola, Florida is a graduate of Duke Divinity School and associate pastor of First United Methodist Church in his home town.  He and his wife, Liz, have two children, Luke and Eliza. Geoffrey was a student pastor in North Carolina where he presented this sermon.

by Henry Neufeld

When I was in elementary and High School, I attended a private, Christian school with its focus on the Bible as the foundation for study. Amongst the many requirements that we had, especially in the area of Bible study was memorization. We memorized chapter after chapter of the King James Version of the Bible.
But there was one type of memorization that was unusual-we had numerous groups of four texts, each grouping in support of a particular doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the denomination to which the school’s owners belonged. For example, we’d have four texts on the Sabbath to memorize, each verse supposedly proving that one ought to rest and worship on Saturday rather than Sunday. Then we’d have four texts on the state of the dead, intended to prove the doctrine of soul-sleep, the idea that when a person dies they don’t go immediately to their eternal reward, but rather wait until the resurrection. Four texts would show that Jesus was going to return soon and that we ought to take this literally. Then the next year, there would be “four more texts” on each of the various subjects to memorize.
The owners of the school and those who taught in it were convinced that if we simply had enough of these proof texts solidly engraved in our memories, we would be able to resist the waves of false doctrine that were said to be preparing to roll over us as we went out into the world. We would clearly know what the truth was because, by the time we had memorized all of them (and few students stayed at the school long enough to do so), we would have memorized as many as 20 scriptures that “proved” that particular doctrinal position.
I appreciate the efforts of that school, and I’m glad I had a chance to attend it, because it gave me the opportunity to learn the proof-text method very, very thoroughly, generally better than most of its practitioners. Thus I can recognize it instantly and respond to it as necessary.
I’m writing this essay in response to various questions I have been asked about Bible study. I suggest that the use of proof-texts is a manifestation of laziness and the desire to get something for nothing. People do not wish to spend the time firmly grounding their understanding in what various Bible writers actually teach. They would much rather have a short list of texts that support precisely what they have decided to believe anyhow. Thus, the use of proof-texts tends toward hypocrisy. To the uninformed, the purveyor of proof-texts can appear to be wonderfully informed and a deep scholar of the Bible. In fact, the result of reliance on proof-texts is a moral certainty and overbearing arrogance that is not supported by one’s study or learning.
But first let me define what I mean by proof-texting. By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances. I do not include the use of texts for illustration or the use of texts which are properly taken in context and limited appropriately in what one tries to prove from them. In particular, I’m referring to the creation of entire doctrines which one demands that others believe or commands which one then demands that others obey, taken from a tissue of the words of texts but ignoring the meaning of those texts in their original contexts.
Let me use an example. If someone were to write a biography of me, he could truthfully state that Henry Neufeld accepted Jesus as his personal savior and received baptism in water by immersion. We can also say that I did this at the age of nine and overcame the objections of my parents and church leadership because I felt that it was in obedience to the commands of Jesus.
Now if the next generation were to read that passage in my biography and apply the proof-text method to it, they might well conclude that I believe as some do that water baptism is a requirement for salvation. They would of course be wrong. I don’t believe anything of the sort. But the key statements are there. I underwent baptism, I did so at the time that I was saved (or received salvation in one sense of the term), I did so because I believed that I was obeying a command of Jesus, and I did it all in such a way that the events were connected.
Now I think most people will be able to see easily that the conclusion that I believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation is not a necessary conclusion based on these facts. Based on the statements above, I might believe that. You can’t be certain that I don’t. But it is not actually stated. It is not even implied.
The difficulty is that by taking words outside of their immediate context or even their broader context will tend to make something seem extremely plain that may not have been intended in the first place. So the fact is that it’s very easy to take statements out of context and create an entire set of doctrinal beliefs from them which are not a valid conclusion based on the intent of those statements.
As a scriptural example, let’s take a look at Acts 2:38. “So Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for (Greek eis) forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Now there are some people who get a number of key doctrines right out of that text. They believe that one must be baptized in order to be saved. They believe that baptism results in forgiveness of sins, thus if one is not baptized one cannot be forgiven. Further, many believe that one must be baptized only in the name of Jesus, or that baptism is not efficacious.
When you’re building these kind of doctrinal sand castles from a single text, you need to be very careful that you have read the text correctly. For example, salvation is said to occur before baptism. Does salvation occur separately from forgiveness of sins? The medium of baptism is not, in fact, mentioned. Perhaps I should tie the text to Mark 1:8, which says that Jesus will baptize “in the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps here there is no water baptism intended, but rather the person who accepts Jesus is immersed in the Holy Spirit, and thus receives forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Someone will, of course, mention that it says, “…baptized for forgiveness of your sins…” Doesn’t this mean that the baptism causes the forgiveness of sins? Well, not exactly. The Greek word used here, eis generally meaning “into” can indicate purpose, but it can also simply indicate result. Further, in studying the text, one needs to ask which of the prior events results in forgiveness of sins-repentance or baptism? Perhaps it is, in fact, both that result in this forgiveness. But it doesn’t say that if you don’t get baptized, you won’t get forgiven, it doesn’t say that it must be in water, and it doesn’t say that no other name need be mentioned. Of course, the proof-texter counts on you not actually knowing any verses that are not on his plan.
We’ve already seen one verse that suggests that there might be more to this baptism thing than we find in this one text. Mark 1:8 suggests that it is possible for one to be baptized “in the Holy Spirit.” It might be difficult to describe a process for that, but one doubts that it involves dunking someone in water. Thus on the first point, that this is a case of water baptism being required for salvation, there is at least some reason to do a little bit of thinking.
What about the matter of names? If we turn to Matthew 28:19 we find the instruction to baptize “in (or into) the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So at least we have some indication that we might need to think some more about this matter of uttering names at the time of one’s baptism.
But what about forgiveness? Surely we can be certain that forgiveness of sins only occurs as the result of believing on Jesus and repenting! How about Matthew 6:14-15. “For if you forgive other people their transgressions, Our Father in heaven will forgive you. If you don’t forgive other people, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” Oops! First, it looks like we have a case where belief in Jesus is not even mentioned, and also where another condition, not mentioned in Acts 2:38 is placed on forgiveness.
And what about the thief on the cross? Jesus apparently indicates (Luke 23:42-43) that the thief is saved, and does so at a time when he has no chance to do anything except suffer and die. Now here’s where the total doctrinal filter can kick in. I was once told that we are not told explicitly that the thief hadn’t been baptized previously, and we know from our proof text (Acts 2:38) that he must get baptized, so we can assume that he did at some point. Of course, the text itself doesn’t say or imply anything of the sort. But once the doctrine is settled into the proof-texter’s mind the things that are actually in the text are obscured by the previously created doctrinal filter.
And we haven’t even gotten to the issue of how rituals relate to actual spiritual experiences in various parts of the Bible. That is something that might enlighten us about the issue of baptism especially.
Now please don’t take the texts I’ve added into the pot and do more proof-texting to create a new doctrine. I used those texts to illustrate the problems with one particular interpretation, not to propose another.
Various groups of Christians have different ways of sorting the Old Testament commands. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, in which I grew up, divides the law into two separate sections. First we have the moral law, which is eternal. SDAs equate this to the ten commandments. Second we have the ceremonial law which is basically the entire remainder of the commands which were, according to this doctrine, nailed to the cross. By this division of laws Seventh-day Adventists are able to divide the commands in a manner that is at least consistent. It may in fact be wrong, but it is at least consistently wrong. Nonetheless you will frequently find Seventh-day Adventist preachers using laws that were supposedly nailed to the cross as though they were binding. The problem is that many Christians have no rational basis on which to divide between the commands that they believe they should keep and the commands that they don’t.
Let’s take, for example, the variety of commands in Leviticus chapter 18 & 19. In chapter eighteen we have a number of commands that relate to sexual morality with especially verse 22 which is commonly used in reference to homosexual behavior. Many Christians view these commands regarding sexual morality as still binding but it’s interesting that if you switch to chapter 19 and point to verses 33 and 34, you’ll find a command that if an alien is residing amongst you, you shall not oppress him. It’s interesting that many of the right wing politicians in the United States have managed to apply the commands of chapter eighteen about sexual morality to American politics, but have not complied with Leviticus 19:33 & 34. In fact it has been viewed as a positive and “Christian” thing to treat aliens in the United States differently from citizens, something which is here forbidden by the Biblical command. On what basis does one distinguish the two commands?
Because users of proof-texts very rarely discuss principles of interpretation, it’s very hard to get at their thinking on these matters, but I’ve formulated some rules which I believe by observation that they follow so that they can claim to be “just doing what it says in the Bible.

1. The True Result
2. Text Trimming
3. Total Doctrinal Filter
4. All Passages are Equal
5. Stick to the Subject

The True Result

When a proof-texter is confronted with his invalid exegesis, he may simply ask what’s wrong with the doctrine he was teaching from the misapplied text. In this case, any process which produces a true answer must be an acceptable process. Any math teacher can tell you to the problem with this-a process can accidentally produce a wrong answer. You need one that consistently produces a right answer. Now because of the extent of bad exegesis in sermons and teachings, I often don’t worry about the details in other people’s work. But each individual should be concerned with the accuracy and consistency of his own work.
Let’s look at an example. Frequently we hear Ezekiel 18:20, normally in the KJV, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” This is taken as a proof text meaning that sin results in death or that the punishment for sin is death. What’s wrong with that? Well, in the passage in question (read the whole chapter!) the argument is quite different. Ezekiel is saying that children will no longer be punished for their parents’ sins. In that context, the statement is that it is the one who sins who will die, and not somebody else. As a Christian you can use Romans 6:23 to indicate what the wages of sin actually are. Ezekiel is concerned not with the wages, but with who gets paid.

Text Trimming

This is the special proof text process whereby one makes the text mean less than it says in order to be able to claim to be following it totally. Let me bring two examples. (All examples are ones I have either heard personally or seen in writing.) Exodus 21:15 & 17 talk about a person who strikes or curses father and mother, and commands that they be put to death. I have heard many Christians claim that we should follow these passages, but they didn’t actually mean to follow them. Instead, they suggested that we should strictly discipline our children. Now I don’t want to provide an argument for actually applying the literal words here. In fact, I hope anyone who does believe in taking the Bible seriously has a way not to apply this to the present day. But to claim to take the Bible literally and at face value, and then to claim that these two texts command us to discipline our children (how much apparently being determined kind of randomly) is simple denial. (Note that both in Judaism and Christianity we have approaches to understanding texts like this that take the literal text seriously, but deal with application in a more appropriate way. These methods are not called “literal,” however, and they should not be.)
Now look at the commands of Jesus in Matthew 5:29-30 to cut off one’s right hand or to pluck out one’s eye if it offends you, or causes you to stumble. I had a lengthy conversation with someone who claimed that all commands in the New Testament (he avoided all examples in the Hebrew scriptures) were to be taken at face value. His particular claim was that we should understand them the way an American high school student would be likely to understand them. This type of interpretation applied to oaths (you can’t take any oath at all), to giving alms (nobody must know under any circumstances whatever, even the IRS for a tax deduction), but when we came to this verse, he used verse trimming. He believed this verse meant one should stand by one’s faith in the face of persecution, in which someone might cut off your hand or tear out your eye. Now that’s an interpretation I doubt most American high school students would come up with!
He had trimmed what the text of the verses actually said so that he could avoid its literal implications without ever admitting that he was interpreting in a non-literal way. He no longer saw the literal meaning at all. He had become accustomed to calling his interpretation literal.

Total Doctrinal Filter

The total doctrinal filter forces all texts to conform to a particular doctrinal standard whether they do or not. For example, I know someone who states unequivocally that no person can possibly be righteous. When I point out certain Biblical characters who are described as righteous, such as Job who was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” he will say that this refers to the fact that Job was covered by the righteousness of Jesus.
Now Job 1:1 doesn’t say anything like that. It appears in context to be discussing Job’s character, describing him as perfect and upright, then stating specifically that he feared God and turned away from evil. It clearly does not state that some theological formula has been intoned over him so that it is no longer his character in question, but rather that of Jesus. The very foundation of the book is that Job is righteous, and thus his suffering undeserved.
This doctrinal filter clearly holds a place of higher authority than the statements of scripture itself. The writer of Job does not get to have his say-he is pre-empted by theology extracted (improperly) from the works of Paul.

All Passages are Equal

Most people involved in discussions of scripture will have encountered this approach, which often is combined with the corollary that all passages can be strung together at will. It is one of the many ways that context is avoided.
A typical example is when someone asks what Jesus had to say on a certain topic, and someone promptly quotes Paul. What did Jesus say about salvation? “Now we know that a man is justified by faith and not by the works of the law” (Romans 3:28). We asked for something Jesus said, and we got Paul back. What’s wrong with this? Wasn’t Paul inspired? I do believe that Paul was inspired, but no amount of inspiration would make Paul into Jesus. No amount of inspiration would take Paul’s historical context and make it the same as that of Jesus. And for some reason, Jesus never said anything close to what Paul said in Romans 3:28 and there’s probably a reason for that, and we ought to look for it. We lose much meaning by ignoring who said what and when.
Another case is the passage from Genesis 15:6, that Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness. Does Paul use these words in the same way and with the same meaning as they were used in Genesis? It’s beyond the scope of this paper to answer that question, but it would probably be a good idea to let Genesis speak and then let Paul speak, and to realize the difference between the two, and then make the decision. (Note that James takes an apparently opposite view of this passage in James 3:23. What are we to do with that one?)

Stick to the Subject

This is the prime defense, which is why I have left it until last. Every proof-texter in the business wants to make sure you stick to the subject, specifically the subject he has chosen to discuss. There is a good reason for this. If you start applying the proof-text method to all sorts of scriptures other than the ones he has chosen, you will get quite different results. Subconsciously, the proof-texter is nervous about the weakness of his approach.
The prime way to respond to proof texts is to identify the method being used, and then use it on other texts, especially texts that produce ridiculous results, such as Exodus 21:15 & 17, and Matthew 5:29-30. Or compare the responses to Leviticus 18 and 19, using the proof text method. You should, in fact, refuse to stick to the subject-the subject the proof-texter has chosen-and force him to try to apply his methods to other subjects. He won’t want to do it, because he knows it won’t work.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of the proof texts is a method that can be twisted to support a variety of viewpoints, that encourages spiritual and intellectual laziness, and produces a form of certainty without an adequate foundation. We need to make our Bible study (or the study of any text) serious by taking the time and effort to hear what the writer is actually saying, rather than abusing his words to support whatever structure we have already built.
Henry Neufeld is the owner of Energion Publications and editor of this eZine. He has BA and MA degrees concentrating in Biblical Languages, and has done post masters work in Linguistics.

by Dr. Bob McKibben

The question has always been there. “Why?” It is framed in many different ways, but ever since the events of Acts, chapter two, the question has always the same. “Why do Christians always share their beliefs with others?” Perhaps you are a missionary on the plains of Africa or in the jungles of South America. Maybe you are just an everyday disciple on the streets of Anytown, USA. Sooner or later you will be faced with the question, “Why do you Christians always try to evangelize others – why are you always sharing your faith?”

The problem is that evangelism methods have often overshadowed the message. The solution is to better understand the true nature of Christian evangelism. This article seeks to offer a few points of understanding and possibly a few answers to the “why” question at the same time.
Those of you who have had close encounters with an over zealous disciple, a modern day follower of Christ, are going to love this first point. The noun “evangelism” has no direct counterpart in scripture. But before you fan the flames of resistance, there are some derivatives of the word in the New Testament. The Greek word euaggelion is translated into English as “gospel.” Gospel is a transliteration of the word “godspell”, which, like euaggelion, means good news.

Evangelism: ev (eu) = good
angel = message, messenger (news)
ism = English noun suffix

An evangelist is someone who shares the Good News, or proclaims the Gospel. The very first evangelists were the angels themselves.

And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (Lk. 2:10-11 RSV emphasis mine).

The point is this. The very essence of the gospel is Christ the Lord. He is the Good News. Jesus is the Message. The birth of Jesus prompted God to send an angelic choir to proclaim the babe’s arrival and sing praises for the marvelous event.
Jesus is the Message, but He is also the Messenger par excellent. After being baptized by John and spending forty days in the wilderness combating the devil, Jesus returned empowered by the Holy Spirit to launch His earthly ministry. Jesus goes home and on the Sabbath goes to the synagogue. He is handed the holy scrolls of Isaiah and reads: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Lk. 4:18-19 RSV emphasis mine).
The mission of Christ was to be the Good News and to announce the Good News. Jesus was the embodiment of the Message that God wanted communicated to His creation.
Q: Why do Christians do evangelism?
A: Christians do evangelism because it is an elemental part of who Christ is and His mission and ministry.
Evangelism is a fundamental part of Christ’s ministry and thus an elemental part of all Christian ministries. Christian disciples are, as the Body of Christ, what Jesus was in the body of Christ. Jesus was the Incarnate God, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” fulfilling and proclaiming the Good News. The Church, the Body of Christ, is a continuation of what God started in Jesus Christ. Evangelism was God’s idea!

Christians also share their faith because their faith demands it. The Christian faith is centered on the Person of Jesus Christ. But more than that, it is empowered by the Living Holy Spirit of Christ. The force or drive behind a disciples’ faith is grace. In writing his Gospel account, John gave us these powerful words:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father…And from His fullness have we all received, grace upon grace. (John 1:14, 16 RSV emphasis mine). The totality of what God in Christ did for us is wrapped up in the word grace. The Greek for grace is charis, which means, “gift.” All the benefits of the Christian faith come to us as gifts – grace. We can’t earn them, we don’t deserve them, and we can’t buy them. The very nature of the Christian faith is that it must be received as a gift and it must be given away in the same manner.
James, the brother of Jesus, caused a lot of trouble when he tried to put this idea in writing. …faith without works is dead…(James 2:26). You cannot receive faith or its saving benefits through works. If you could, it would no longer be a gift and your life would no longer be empowered by grace. On the other hand, if faith is simply received and finds no life beyond itself, it dies. The Christian faith has to have expression by giving itself away. Essentially, it must be shared with others by word and deed. (Romans 15:18).
Have you ever considered why the Dead Sea is dead? It has no outflow. The waters of the Jordan and other tributaries flow into the sea, and where the ecosystems meet, life abounds. But there is no life in the main body of the sea because it has no outlet, no flow. Faith that becomes bottled up and stagnant soon dies. It must be shared with others in order to live.
Q: Why do Christians share their faith?
A: We share our faith because our faith demands it.
Yet another way to answer the question “why?” is to admit that our times demand it. It is possible to pick any number of world events to highlight “our times”, but consider these. When two students can walk into their high school with guns and bombs, killing indiscriminately teachers and fellow students, and then themselves, it’s time for Christians to put their faith into action. When a person can walk into a Baptist Church in Texas and begin shooting young people who have gathered to pray, it’s time for Christians to being sharing their faith with others.
The events of September 11, 2001 are certainly those that have changed all our lives forever. More than that, it has changed the entire human population. When a group of men can simultaneously hijack four commercial airliners and fly them into national landmarks with the intent of killing themselves and thousands of others – IN THE NAME OF GOD! – it’s time for Christians to put their faith into action.
Scott Beamer’s wife, Lisa, has written her story of the event of that day. In her book titled Let’s Roll! Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage, she reveals the chilling events aboard United Flight 93 that crashed in a Pennsylvania field, claiming her husband’s life. Except for the extraordinary faith and courage of those aboard, Flight 93 would have likely been crashed into the White House, or some other Washington landmark. If the event itself isn’t shocking enough, the radio and intercom transmissions tell a horrifying truth. These men were willing to kill and be killed because they believed that God was directing them to do so.
In each of the horrifying stories above, young boys and grown men were deluded by a terrible lie. They were duped by a false message into believing that they would be honored and revered for such murderous acts. Some were even deceived into believing that they would spend eternity in heaven for their “faithfulness.” A secondary, but equally tragic result of all this is that others across our planet are being drawn into the same horrible lie. They are being led down the path that leads to eternity – an eternity with the Father of Lies. Almost every religion believes that our world will someday come to an end. The events of our day appear to be plunging us more rapidly than ever toward that day. Christians must proclaim the truth about the One True God. They must share their faith in hopes that others won’t be duped and deluded by the author of lies. God doesn’t need to be defended against the liars of our world, but His divine truths do need to be proclaimed and shared for all to hear. God wants His followers to be ordinary people with extraordinary courage.
Q: Why do Christians share their faith?
A: Christians share their faith because our times demand it.
For all the opponents of evangelism who are still reading, thank you. Christians share their faith because it is intrinsic to all Christian ministries. Christians share their faith because their faith demands it. Christians share their faith because our times demand it. To all disciples of our Lord still reading, thank you. Christians must never confuse method and motive with God’s Message. We must insure that our methods and our motives reflect God’s method and motive. After all evangelism is God’s idea. And what is His method and motive? Love (John 3:16)!

I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints, and I pray that the sharing of your faith may promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ. (Philemon 4-6 RSV).

by Chris Eyre

The text of a sermon presented at the Bowers Allerton Mission Hall

Sitting in front of the television a couple of nights ago, the news came on. There was a report of another suicide bombing in Palestine – and I thought “I don’t want to hear any more about this” and turned over to watch something which didn’t make me think, which didn’t challenge me, which didn’t make me want to do something about this terrible situation. I’ve done the same with many news reports – perhaps we all have.
I don’t know if any of you have yet seen “The Passion of the Christ” (the new film by Mel Gibson) – I haven’t myself, though I’ve heard a lot of reports of it. I understand, though, that it focuses very much on the sheer barbarity of the end of Jesus’ ministry on earth, and I think as we move towards Easter, when we will be remembering that particularly, this is something on which we would do well to reflect.
Crucifixion was perhaps one of the most barbaric punishments ever invented. It tortured as it killed, and usually it killed fairly slowly – there are reports of people living two or three days nailed to a cross, or a tree. Generally, it was apparently eventually suffocation which actually killed, as the position put increasing pressure on the lungs. The Romans were skilled at this, though, and provided ropes to bind the arms in order to prevent the body from falling as a result of the nails tearing through the flesh, and often also put a kind of peg in so their victim would be able to hold himself up longer – and suffer longer.
Over the next few weeks, we may see and hear the nails being knocked in, we may hear the cries of anguish, we may see a man reduced to the ultimate agony – and we may do this whether or not we see the film. It is the most harrowing moment of all of the gospels, the day when Christ said “it is finished”. It is the start point of Easter, our remembrance of that death and the glorious resurrection which followed.
I did recently attend a performance of “Jesus Christ, Superstar” at the Theatre Royal at York. Again, I don’t know whether any of you have seen a production, but this I can definitely recommend.
The words “Jesus Christ, Superstar, do you think you’re who they say you are” echo in my mind. What do we say Christ is?
I’ve talked to you on my last visit about the Creation and Adam, and, in a way, what I’m going to say follows on from that – you can regard this as “Part II” if you like. Actually, I’m going to link in to quite a lot of what I’ve said previously, so forgive me if there’s some repetition. [Ed. We may publish that prior sermon at a later date, but we believe this will stand on its own for now.] The reading was the beginning of John’s gospel. Now, I think it’s clear that in this passage “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. … and “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” we have the pinnacle of the understanding of Jesus.
In Acts 2:22-24 Luke tells us that Peter said “Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” Snipping everything between that and Acts 2:33, Peter continues:- “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear”
We have, in the preamble to John’s gospel, a very different picture. The Word made flesh……. having been in the beginning with God, and being God. Can this be the “man attested to you by God”? Are we talking about two entirely different concepts?
Which brings me back to “Jesus Christ, Superstar”. Who was Jesus? What was Jesus?
We ascribe a large number of roles to him. He was, obviously, a man. He was a healer (among the other mighty works and wonders and signs which Peter talked of). He was a teacher, a preacher, a leader.
He is also (to some at least of his followers and to us, but, sadly, not to much of Judaism) the messiah, the prophesied deliverer of the nation of Israel.
“Superstar” deals, in part, with some of the expectations of his followers at the time, and I think many of these were based on messianic prophecy. Some expected a military leader (two of the disciples were associated with the “Zealots” – and one was called “Zealot” in the bible – and the Zealots were a group of what we would now call “freedom fighters”, though the Romans would probably have called them “terrorists”) – someone who would liberate the nation of Israel from the oppressive rule of Rome. Some expected the apocalypse and the intervention of God on earth in person, with Jesus playing a central role. Most, I suspect, expected that he could wave a magic wand and produce what they thought he was aiming at.
But what I think he was aiming at was bringing others to his conception of God. I hark back to the Sermon on the Mount, and his impassioned statements about the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God). In a world where (in modern terms) most people had a faulty dial-up connection to God, Jesus had broadband. He knew that it was possible to have communion with God on a daily, an hourly, a minute-by minute basis – and I believe that is what he meant by the Kingdom of Heaven.
I also think that this is what is really meant by “Son of God”, which is the next category in which we place him. This is not exclusive – in Deuteronomy 14:1, we see “You are the sons of the Lord your God”, applied to the whole nation of Israel. We are all sons and daughters of God.
And yet, we face the scripture “only begotten son of God” in John. It cannot, in the face of other scripture, mean “only son of God”; the clue has to be in the word “begotten”. I’ll pass over issues such as the virgin birth here, and suggest that the word would be better thought of as “intended”.
We also have the concept of Jesus as mediator (one of the possible meanings contained in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life; no-one shall come to the father save by me”. In Hebrews 5:5, he is described as a high priest.
So, we have man, healer, teacher, preacher, wonder worker, messiah, mediator, high priest, Son of God. . . .
And we add redemptive sacrifice. “Lamb of God, who bears the sins of the world”. Saviour, redeemer.
But John actually goes further than this. He links Jesus with the Word of God, and with God himself. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God”, and “And the Word became flesh and dwelt with us”. Jesus is God. We hold to a trinitarian doctrine, that there is one God in three persons, father, son and Holy Ghost.
Son of God and God, then.
And one thing more – he is also described as the “new Adam”. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 says “Thus it is written ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit”.
This takes us back to where we were the last time I spoke to you. Then, I talked of the story of Creation being the story of God creating the universe out of his own substance; all of material reality being of the “stuff of God”. This is very much the image given by some of the great Christian mystics – Meister Eckhart, for instance, said “Thou shalt know him without image, without semblance and without means, – ‘But for me to know God thus, with nothing between, I must be all but he, he all but me’ I say, God must be very I, I very God, so consummately one that this he and this I are one is…..”.
If you want a more prosaic version – Eckhart is definitely carried away there by the power of his personal experience of God, and his language is not easy – consider for a moment Matthew 25:34-40: “Then the King will say to those at his right hand ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me’. Then the righteous will answer him ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me’”.
Think of this – that this is more literal than it might appear, that what you do to another you are doing to Jesus: God in immanence, in his creation is the whole of creation (and, of course, more besides). Creation out of the “stuff” of God renders all things God – and of this Jesus is the pattern. I see things very much as the mystics do; when I read the commandment not to kill, I read it as not to kill because what is killed is a part of the living God, and extend it to every living thing. When I read the Great Commandments – briefly, to love God, and to love your neighbour as yourself, I see these as two formulations of the same thing. With the passage from Matthew, what I do to my fellow man I do to God – but when I squash a fly, I am doing it to God as well.
And then think further. I spoke of the nails being driven into the hands and feet at the beginning of this: in every negative action we do towards another, we are driving in another nail. Christ lives in humanity, and humanity in general, not just in Christians, and is crucified every day, every hour, every minute somewhere in the world. He is starved, beaten, shot, mutilated, abused, imprisoned in actions we take against others all the time.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son – yes, but more than that, God poured himself into his creation at the beginning. The Word was made flesh from the beginning, and that flesh is the whole of creation.
And in my thinking, together with many of the mystics, Christ; God; the new Adam also lives in every part of the remainder of creation, and what we do to that beggars description. When an animal is vivisected, when we pollute the earth on which we live – these things too we do to God, we do to Christ.
I preach Christ crucified: I preach God crucified on the cross of the universe – crucified from the beginning, and crucified still. In all our actions in the world, we may be knocking in another nail – and we probably are knocking in another nail. And yet, God gave himself that this should be possible.
God so loved the world.

by Henry Neufeld

Many people in the pews don’t understand the controversy that surrounds this issue. Some think they do, but have misunderstood what the debate is about. This essay is not intended as a contribution to scholarly debate, but rather as an explanation to the general public as to what the issues really are. Though I have a definite point of view I believe you can read this essay, gain some insight into the problem, and still end up disagreeing with me.
Some people prefer the term “gender accuracy” but I continue to use gender-neutrality, because that is the term most people in the church pews think of in connection with this issue. It is also part of the second and third issues that I list.

Multiple Issues

There is not a single issue of gender-neutral language, with people divided into “yes” and “no” camps. Rather there are at least three issues involved.

1. The issue of gender references in Bible translation, where the reference of a Bible passage is (probably) to people of more than one gender.
2. The issue of gender in references to God or angels as used in the Biblical text.
3. The issue of gender in references to God or angels in modern liturgical language and in common speech.

Gender References in the Bible

There is a great deal of agreement amongst scholars about a number of references in the Bible in which one can clearly determine the gender of the persons referred to. In these cases, translators search for the best option to represent the actual persons referenced. If it is a group of men and women, modern usage usually requires some indication, such as “brothers and sisters” rather than “brethren,” or something similar.
More controversial is the use of “he or she” instead of just “he” or the singular “they,” which were all deprecated by English teachers a few years ago, but have become nearly standard. These issues have an impact on how well various audiences understand the Bible, but they do not represent theological positions as such. Some people complain of political correctness when certain terms are used; others are annoyed when the sisters are not included. Let me suggest that this is a matter of preference. If you don’t like modern gender-neutral language, choose a Bible translation that doesn’t use it and find a church where the dialect spoken reflects your preferences. It’s not worth fighting over. (For help choosing a Bible version, see the Energion.com Bible Translation Selection Tool.)
More controversial still is the idea of “male representation.” To understand this issue consider the difference in translation of Psalm 1:1 between the ESV and the NLT:
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (ESV)
Oh, the joys of those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or stand around with sinners, or join in with scoffers. (NLT)
In order to avoid the gender specific language, the translators of the NLT have changed the singular reference to a man to a neutral and plural “those.” This changes the gender reference, but it also changes the number. There are those who believe that this dilutes the meaning, that there is an intention here to hold up a single man, definitely not a woman, as the example of the person who obeys God and is blessed. The ESV sticks with the gender specific and singular form.
I chose the ESV and the NLT because those two translations are both done by evangelical translation teams, which makes it clear that this is not a liberal vs. conservative argument.
Again, while I understand the issue, let me suggest that the best way to approach this is to choose a Bible version that is translated in the way you prefer. Nobody is deceiving anyone. The NLT translators, and others, such as the TNIV team, believe that the best way to convey the meaning of this verse is to present it in a gender-neutral fashion, keeping it clear that either a man or a woman who obeys God would be blessed. The ESV translators are sticking with the number and gender in the source text, assuming that people will understand that the blessing is not limited by gender, but believing that the spiritual position of the male is important and must be preserved.
(Note that I don’t know the theological position of each of the ESV translators. Some of them might simply prefer the more literal rendering, despite some possible loss of communication, or might also not believe that there is that much loss of communication with the exclusively male pronoun.)
All of these issues relate purely to translation. There is no question how Hebrew and Greek represented mixed groups of men and women. The question is how we express the same thing in English, being faithful to the source texts, and also being accurate and clear in the way we communicate.

Gender Language Referring to God in Translation

Most Bible translators will quickly tell you that they do not believe in modifying gender language used in reference to God. This issue becomes confused with the first issue. I am frequently asked when teaching whether the NRSV is that “gender-neutral” Bible. Normally people are referring to various efforts to change terminology used in reference to God, modifying he to she, or to a combination of masculine and feminine pronouns, or referring to “Mother-God” instead of “Father God.” But the NRSV did no such thing. All of its modifications of gender language fall into the first category I listed above, and are hardly more radical than those of the evangelical NLT.
This type of language with reference to God should be clearly distinguished from translating simple references to persons or groups of people. The vast majority of Bible translations are not nearly so radical. There have been a few experiments in translating references to God in the Biblical text, but none of these occur in mainstream versions. Despite the fact that if you put “gender neutral” and “NRSV” into Google, you’ll get multiple pages of listings talking about the “gender neutral NRSV,” the NRSV only deals with references to groups of people and does so quite well.
It is because of this confusion that many people would like to change the terminology, using “gender accurate” for the instances I noted in my first heading, but saving the term “gender neutral” for this second area.
For historical reasons, I would suggest that translating the scriptural references to God using modern gender neutral terminology is inappropriate. The writers of the Bible used masculine references to refer to God; they understood his role using masculine metaphors, and we should not obscure this historical fact.

Gender References to God in Modern Liturgy

But what about references to God by feminine terminology in modern liturgy or in common conversation about God? One of my favorite authors, Andrew Greeley, regularly uses feminine pronouns and other references to God in his novels. I do not find this in any way offensive.
Why do I find gender-neutral translation of references to God in the Bible offensive, but not modern use? The issue is both historical and experiential. Historical, in that it is simply a fact that metaphors for understanding God were largely masculine in Biblical times. We should not hide from facts of history. But it is also experiential in that it is extremely valuable to understand that our experience with God can change and grow, and that we can learn to understand God under new terminology and new metaphors. When we try to make modern people out of the prophets, we tend to obscure this fact. We don’t have to change their experience in order to celebrate our own, developing experience.
So while I would object to alteration of references to God in a Bible translation, I am not disturbed by such references in modern liturgy. I would add one note, however. Those who change the image of God to a purely feminine one are, I believe, losing just as much as those who see only masculine aspects to God. Don’t let fear and bad examples of men in your own life prevent you from seeing the masculine aspects of God’s character.

Summary

Let me simply suggest that the issues of Bible translation can be easily solved by choosing the Bible translations that we use wisely. If certain language does not communicate well with you, don’t use versions that use that language. At the same time, don’t force others to use only versions that communicate best with you-they may be very different from you.
In liturgy, we need to make sure to both communicate, and allow the worshippers to worship. Liturgy can either help people get closer to God, or it can stand in the way. We simply need to look at how individual church members can best worship, and try to facilitate their experience with God as best we can.
For more information, see What’s in a Version, a pamphlet from Energion Publications, or the book by the same title and author, What’s in a Version?

Henry Neufeld is the owner of Energion Publications and the editor of this eZine. He has BA and MA degrees concentrating in Biblical Languages, and has done post masters work in Linguistics.

by Chris Eyre

The text of a sermon presented at the Bowers Allerton Mission Hall

Seeing all the coverage about Israel and Palestine, and doing some background reading, a thought came to me.
Yasser Arafat is a son of God.
Shocking, isn’t it? Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of the current conflict, Arafat is a long time terrorist, and his followers (if not he himself) have been responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent Israelis.
But bear with me. In Matthew’s gospel, we read “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God” (Mat.5:9). Chairman Arafat was once a joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. And he’s a male child, so he’s a “son”. Stands to reason……
I think, following that, that we’d all want to take refuge in the passage from Ezekiel (Ezk.18) in the reading “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered” (Ezk.18:24). To be fair, I’d also suggest that it’s about time that those in Israel read and took to heart the wording of that chapter. There are too many fathers who have eaten sour grapes (Ezk.18:2), and too many children whose teeth are set on edge (Ezk.18:2). That passage marks the point where Judaism abandoned the concept that the sins of the fathers were visited upon the children (Ex.20:5, Ex.34:7, Num.14:18, Deut.5:9, Jer.32:18) and was a precursor to the development of the Judaism which became Christianity.
So, perhaps, for a brief period, Chairman Arafat was a son of God and would have been received into the Kingdom of Heaven (or the Kingdom of God – I don’t make a distinction between them, and where Matthew says “Kingdom of Heaven”, Mark says “Kingdom of God” when describing otherwise the same saying). Perhaps, at some time in the future, that will be the case – we can hope and pray so.
Matthew also tells us Jesus said that the poor in spirit qualified (Mat.5:3). Those persecuted for righteousness’ sake (Mat.5:10). Those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, visit the sick or prisoners (Mat.25:34-37, Lk.12:32). Luke tells us “Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the most high” (Lk.6:35).
So we have a promise. These actions will deliver the Kingdom to us. Jesus reinterpreted for us the standards which Ezekiel talked of, including especially charity (Ezk.18:16), and added the foundation for the commandments – that we should love our neighbour as ourselves (Mat.23:39).
So what is the Kingdom? We hear that it’s a pearl of great price Mt.13:35), as well as a grain of mustard seed (13:31), a leaven (13:33), a treasure hidden in a field (13:44), good seed (13:24), choice fish (13:47), the new and the old from a treasure (13:52), a good return on investment (18:23), given in fullness irrespective of our worth (20:1). Confusing…….we should obviously look for it, but what will we get?
Paul writes “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known”. (I Cor.13:12). What we hope for is a glimpse of God as He is, a connection with Deity, a foundation for our existence. And this is indeed a pearl of great price and a treasure. Seeing through a glass darkly is accepting the grain of mustard seed which can grow, accepting the leaven which will raise our spirits. Clearly, this is something which we cannot comprehend without experiencing it, and we will experience it only in part.
Mind you, Matthew also tells us Jesus’ words “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mat.5:20)- but that may say more about how he felt about the Scribes and Pharisees than it does about what we need to reach the Kingdom.
More seriously, though, he says also “Except you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven”. (Mat.18:3-4). Has the promise been taken away if we can’t manage to abandon all our adult attitudes?
No, I don’t think it has. I think Jesus speaks here from the absolute knowledge that, before God, we will inevitably react as little children.
Now, when will this happen?
Is it to be when we die? Is it to be when Christ comes again?
I don’t think it has to be. In Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels, Jesus speaks of the Kingdom being at hand several times, as does John the Baptist before him (Mat.3:2, 4:17, 10:7) – but this is often interpreted as talking of an event which hasn’t happened yet. I think that’s not a correct reading. Luke tells us Jesus promised “There are some standing here who will not taste of death before they see the Kingdom of God” (Lk.9:27) – and this was nearly 2000 years ago!
Was he wrong? Were his audience going to die before a second coming (as they clearly did) without his words being fulfilled?
I think not. I believe he was right; I believe some of them did see the Kingdom of God, and indeed entered into the Kingdom of God, within their natural lifetimes. The Kingdom is a thought away, if, indeed, it isn’t filling some of us as I speak.
I’ll assume that anyone who’s looking into space and seems to me not to be concentrating is experiencing the Kingdom at this moment…….
But I’d like to hear some testimony about it from them later.
But I don’t see any promise of when this entering into the Kingdom will happen, just that it will. Maybe not within our lifetimes, maybe at our deaths, maybe at some time after that.
Let me move on to John’s gospel. John has a very different approach and talks of a very different vision from Matthew, Mark and Luke. John records that Jesus said “unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn.3:3) and “unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn.3:5).
I often attend a charismatic church, where they are very keen on the “born again” concept – and it seems to work. I’m not someone who’s gone through the formula of being born again in that way; neither was my father, who most of you will remember, and, I suspect, neither are several others present here today. Those of us who have arrived at faith by other means (and I’m going to come back to that) are going to find it difficult, at the least, to cast everything away and take a new path.
So do we all need to be “born again”? Born twice, indeed? Well, not as a precondition. Look at Saul, on the Damascus road: you’ll remember that Luke writes in Acts “But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the High Priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now, as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said “”Who are you, Lord?” And he said “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men travelling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing, so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight and neither ate or drank” (Ac.9:1-9).
Saul’s heart was filled with anything but humbleness and charity, and he was a persecutor rather than the persecuted. He didn’t qualify under any of the headings I’ve mentioned, but God still gave him a vision, a faith and a mission all in one all-encompassing experience. I’m sure that in the process he was born again spiritually, as I’m sure that in entering into the Kingdom of God each of us are born again spiritually – if not yet, then in the future.
I’m sure you’ve all realised that I’ve now covered three basic ways of attaining the Kingdom.
We can have faith, do those things Jesus stated would entitle us to enter the Kingdom, and rest assured on his promise that we will do so (though we ought to take to heart the passage from Ezekiel (Ezk.18:24).
We can go through the ritual conversion which has been made out of the passages in John I mentioned and others. As I’ve said, it seems to me that this is a fairly effective way of opening a line to the Kingdom. I think John knew this route, having travelled it himself – I see his poetic writing in his Gospel as evidence of this – we all know “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, and we all know “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by me.”
Or, a very few of us may be zapped by God like Saul. We won’t deserve it, but it will give instant access to the Kingdom and change our lives forever. We can’t ask for it, we can’t do anything to encourage it; it will just happen.
Unfortunately, after he became Paul, he didn’t write anything about that experience which might give us a glimpse of it from this great writer. The best I can come up with is from Blaise Pascal, the famous French mathematician, written in his notebook: “From about half past ten in the evening to about half an hour after midnight.
Fire.
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob.
Not the God of philosophers and scholars.
Absolute certainty; beyond reason. Joy. Peace.
Forgetfulness of the world and everything but God.
The World has not known thee, but I have known thee.
Joy! Joy! Tears of joy!”
What Paul does write of at length is his knowledge that, once such an experience has happened, there is no going back, and areas where there is no room for doubt (Rom.12:2 etc.). And that the fruits of the spirit will flow inevitably (I.Cor.12).
Now, I did get zapped like Saul, or at least like Pascal. My father didn’t. He left myself and mum a message which we read after he died, and it was clear that he hadn’t had more than a glimpse of the full possibility of entry into the Kingdom and had many doubts and uncertainties. I wish he had had more; I know that Jesus’ promise means that he now does. I know that that promise means that all can share in that Kingdom, whether we arrive by a life of faith and works, whether we seek an instant transformation with the Charismatics, or whether God just decides it’s time for us to change and changes us without warning.
But, knowing father’s doubts, I’ll pray that we can all enter the Kingdom sooner rather than later, and go through the rest of our lives with the absolute certainty given to John and to Paul.