Less is More: Sacrificing Your Religion

Last spring I began a sermon on Galatians 6:11-18 by asking the question:

Which is better: a bad Christian or a good non-Christian?

The consensus (and orthodox) answer I got was what I expected to hear: "It is better to have prayed to be saved and be a poor excuse for a Christian than to never have asked to be saved and life an otherwise good life apart from Jesus." Would it surprise you to know that someone worshipping with us last spring left this congregation because of precisely this response?

I don’t blame that person for being upset. Paul’s point in that passage was bad religion counts for nothing. More to the point, being in the "insider" group or the "outcast" group counts for nothing; the only thing that matters is becoming a new creation through Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:15).

Bad religion counts for nothing. Not everyone who calls Jesus "Lord" will be saved (Matt. 7:21-23); action that changes how we live counts for more than mere words (Matt. 21:28-32); the power of Christ can be at work even in those whom we (in our arrogance) call outsiders (Mark 9:38-41). Nowhere is the contrast between a bad believer and a good non-believer more pronounced than in today’s story.

Luke 10

Commentary

The context for this story is curious. In Luke 10:1-24, Jesus sends 72 disciples of for "field ed." They go out as evangelists and return with great success stories. Is it possible that there is more to serving God than that?

v25 Curiously, Jesus is asked this question on another occasion (Luke 18:18). In each case Jesus points them to Torah, but he gives each a different answer! Could it be that the act of going to God for the answer is more important than the answer itself? Could it be that what God asks of you depends on where you are in your walk and, therefore, what he asks of you will be different that what he asks of another?

v29 The word "justify" here means "make righteous." OT scholar Bruce Waltke says righteousness is "the willingness to be disadvantaged for the sake of another." Who in these verses is justified/righteous?

v30 Most likely the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was in a wadi: a gully or dry riverbed. It was probably narrow, with sharp bends and crevices, making it an ideal place for bandits.

v31-32 A priest or Levite encountering the half-dead man in a wadi would have difficulty ignoring or avoiding him. "Passing by on the other side" might have involved something as ridiculous as scaling the sides of the gully.

v33 The compassion the Samaritan feels is the same word as the compassion Jesus is feels for those in need (Matt. 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke 15:20).

The Samaritan does not merely do what is required; he is merciful because he goes over and above the law.

Application

Jesus does not elaborate about the motivation of the priest or the Levite. Certainly there are all sorts of rules about ceremonial cleanliness which pertain to touching dead bodies (e.g. Leviticus 21:10-12; Numbers 19:11-22). However, the parable’s main points are:

your neighbor is whomever God puts in your path, and

religiosity is no predictor of mercy; the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6).

In 1970, sociologists John Darley and Daniel Batson ran an experiment based on the parable of the good Samaritan ("From Jerusalem to Jericho: A Study of ... Helping Behavior"). As part of the experiment, Princeton seminary students were asked to walk across campus and give a speech about the parable of the good Samaritan. On the way to the speech they encountered a "victim" in shabby clothes who appeared drunk, possibly dangerous, and in physical discomfort. Most of the students ignored, or walked around, the victim without offering any immediate assistance. How ironic, to be preparing to give a speech about the good Samaritan, but to play the part of the priest or the Levite!

In Darley and Batson’s experiment, three results emerged:

the students who were behind schedule were least likely to offer help ("... ethics becomes a luxury as the speed of our lives increases"),

the students who were the most likely to offer substantial help were the least sensitive to the victim’s descriptions of his needs (i.e. they were likely to minister in certain ways—taking the victim to the cafeteria, or witnessing to him—irrespective of what help the victim asked for), and

the students who were most likely to offer help were the ones most concerned with finding meaning in life (however they often did not render the most help—the theory is that they responded to the perceived needs of the victim).

Americans are driven by two idols (at least): the clock, and a simplistic view of holiness. Most of us try to cram too many activities into too little time. Our sacrifices to our clock idol are those things for which we have no time. We take on commitments with the best of intentions, but later we are forced to sacrifice those commitments in the service of limited time (and more important commitments!). One of the sacrifices we make we may not even notice: our awareness of our own surroundings. The busier we become, the less we notice trouble around us; psychologist Edward Tolman called this "the narrowing of the cognitive map." The busier we are—the smaller our cognitive map is—the less we are able to make moral judgments. We want our moral decisions—our pursuit of holiness—to be black or white, yes or no, stay or go. However, a simplistic holiness is frequently insensitive to the needs of those to whom we wish to minister! We forget that holiness comes from the power of God at work in our lives.

Best guess is that the priest and the Levite were either too busy or too obsessed with their view of holiness to deal with the victim as a person. They forgot what God requires most: justice, mercy, and humility (Micah 6:8). They struck out on all counts (oh no, a baseball metaphor!). If they had sacrificed their time or their sense of holiness, in the eyes of their peers they would have been a pariah like the Samaritan, but they would have done what God required. That would have been righteousness.

Points to Ponder

Where do you worship a clock idol? What sacrifices do you make to it? Do you sacrifice your devotional time before it? Do you sacrifice time with those your care about before it? What needs to change in your life for you to stop being driven by a clock?

Where do you worship holiness or religiosity? Are you more concerned with justice (for others!), mercy (for others!) and humility (yours, before God) or maintaining your own righteousness? If righteousness, as Waltke says, is to be disadvantaged for the sake of another, where have you been willing to be disadvantaged, inconvenienced, or even taken advantage of?

Who are the people that don’t belong at church? What would have to change for you to befriend and minister to them? (Hint: if the answer doesn’t involve you having to change, think again.)

What if God called you to a ministry that made you look like a "Samaritan" to your Christian friends? What if you had to give up your notions of religion & holiness to follow God? Could you do it? Why or why not?

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 'I will not,' he answered, but
later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?"

"The first," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. (Matthew 21:28-32)

Veterans Day Prayer, 2007

Recently the commander of the United States forces in Iraq was vilified in the New York Times as someone who betrayed his country. Although we may disagree as to how the current conflicts in which we are engaged should be fought, although we may disagree as to when and how military forces should be deployed, we are united in our support of our men and women in the military. They know—as they have always known—that they fight in service to the country. They lay down their lives—as they have always laid down their lives—believing in death before dishonor. They will—as they always have—lay down their lives rather than betray their country.

When the God sent the Jews into the promised land he told them: "Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you." (Deut 31:6) God will not betray, will not forsake, those who died trusting in him. We should do no less.

Lord, you say, "Greater love has no man than this: to lay down his life for another" (John 15:13). This is the pattern that you have given us, as you came to earth as a man we called Jesus, and you showed your love for us in this: that while we wanted nothing to do with you, you did not leave us or forsake us. Rather, you came and died for us. This is the pattern that the men and women we honor here today followed. Like you, they were willing to lay down their lives for another. They have died to free slaves. They have died to liberate countries. They are risking life today for a foreign nation that seems to resist liberation.

They have died rather than forsake their sacred trust. These brave men and women had no other choice. They chose to overcome evil with good. We choose life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but they have chosen to lay down life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the sake of countrymen they do not even know and a foreign enemy that would kill them.

Lord, in light of their example, and out of respect for their sacrifice, help us to live likewise. Help us to remember our veterans today and in the days to come. Help us to serve, support, and encourage our brothers and sisters in the military ... that good might prevail and evil fail.

To our men and women currently serving, we pray:

Deliver them from their enemies, O God; protect them from those who rise up against them. Deliver them from evildoers and save them from bloodthirsty men ... We watch for you; for you, O God, are their fortress. (Psalm 59)

To our departed brothers and sisters, we pray:

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace. (Numbers 6:24-26)

Amen.

Rumors of Another World ...

Rumors of Another World is the name of a Philip Yancey book that I highly recommend. I borrowed the title for this blog entry because I think the message here captures a bit of the spirit of Yancey's book, to wit: to what extent do we bear witness to another world, i.e. the kingdom of God?

We still live in the world, but we are called to be as aliens or strangers in the world (1 Peter 2:11). We're supposed to march to a different drummer, be out of sync, out of step. None of this is is to be done to glorify ourselves. Rather, the daily direction we receive from God should be apparent to others (should they be paying attention) when we go into the world. Do you believe that?

The question for today, then, is:

How should we engage the culture in which we live; specifically, what should we do with songs, movies, activities, etc. that may run contrary to our beliefs as Christians?

Just to ground this in a real-life example, there is a film coming out soon, The Golden Compass, which is has been highly criticized by the conservative Christian community. Reviewers have asserted that: (1) the author of the trilogy on which the film is based is an atheist, (2) the books/film have an anti-church message, (3) the books are about "killing God" (a direct quote by the author during a 2003 interview in The Sydney Morning Herald). snopes.com, a website established to quash rumors of all sorts, validates all these assertions.

Now I haven't read the books; certainly I have not previewed the film, scheduled for release in December, 2007. How should I—more importantly, how should you—engage this work of art AND engage people who have seen the film/read the books and want to talk?

Richard Niebuhr in his famous book Christ and Culture, suggested five paradigms of how Christ interacted with culture (the implication being that these five options are available for us to follow as well). For Niebuhr, Christ & culture are a duality, just as law & grace, body & mind, or revelation & reason are dualities. In each of the five paradigms, how the dualities co-exist leads to a different Christian ethic:

Christ against culture: The dualities are mutually exclusive. It's a fallen world and, for us to be holy, we need to separate ourselves from the world. Adherents might say, "The Bible is the only book I need to read." By this logic, we would have nothing to do with the movie, and, if people asked our opinion about the movie, we would only quote the Bible to support our position.

Christ of culture: If Christ against culture is one extreme, this is the other. The dualities co-exist easily. If there is good in any culture, that goodness ultimately points back to Christ. Adherents might say, "God can be found in Koran, the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, the Torah, etc." By this logic, we would be open to watching the movie—deciding for ourselves if there was any good in it—and, if people asked our opinion about the movie, we would speak about what was good in the movie in terms of the movie.

Christ above culture: The dualities are vertical; Christ is over and above a fallen, sinful world. Christ comes down to humanity with gifts that humanity cannot attain without supernatural intervention. Whatever good may exist in a culture, the grace of God through Jesus is necessary to complete it. While "Christ in culture" adherents might talk about goodness in terms of the culture, "Christ above culture" adherents might take the goodness of the culture as a starting point for talking about the goodness that comes through Jesus. By this logic, we would be open to watching the movie, and, if people asked our opinion about the movie, we would be ready to help them "connect the dots" between goodness in the movie and Christ's goodness.

Christ and culture in paradox: Life is an uneasy tension as we live in both realities simultaneously. There are places where Christ is good for culture, and places where the culture is good for the Christian life, but ultimately the Christian's heart is ruled by Christ, not culture. Adherents here might talk about living "in the world" but not being "of the world." By this logic, we would have a "take it or leave it" attitude about the movie, depending on whether we thought the movie was edifying.

Christ transforming culture: Life is an uneasy tension as we live in both realities simultaneously here as well; however, the role of Christ in the world is to change the world, just as a bit of yeast works through a whole batch of dough, changing it (Matthew 13:33). Adherents might talk about being the light of the world. By this logic, we would be open to watching the movie, and, if people asked our opinion about the movie, we would be ready to talk with them about their reactions to the movie and in the process sow the seeds of the gospel in their lives.

My apologies to anyone who thinks I've trivialized or misrepresented Niebuhr—you're invited to describe Niebuhr's 5 paradigms in your own terms in a comment.

By the way, being clueless and just getting by day-to-day without thinking about it any more than you have to is no an option. If you're so steeped in the culture that you don't think about where you are, where you're going, or where Christ is the the scheme of things, you may think that you believe in Christ, but your actions don't bear it out. You're part of the culture. Now, what would it look like if Christ really came to you and showed you a different way to live, a way that wasn't just about getting by day-to-day, wouldn't that be a good thing? Something in your life would have to change--probably something involving your reward system, i.e. what floats your boat--but what if you gained more than you gave up? It turns out this is exactly what following Christ is all about (Mark 10:28-31).

You can find Biblical justification for all five paradigms. Each of the five may be necessary at some point in your life. However, which of the five best describes how you live in the world? Your response will determine how you live out Peter's charge to "be prepared to give a reason for the hope you have" (1 Peter 3:15).

For me, the problem is not the culture, but being called to witness to people within the culture. My problem when I try to discuss movies with kids at the high school, for example (although I have the same problem with many adults), as that they usually don't know what they've seen and frequently can't describe it very well. If a kid at the high school comes up to me and says, "How did you like that movie? What did you think when X happened?" frequently they'll totally misunderstand / misinterpret X. So I end up: (a) having to explain X; (b) explaining why X is wrong; and (c) giving a Biblical interpretation. If I trusted a kid's understanding of what they'd seen, we'd never get very far. (Pop quiz: what paradigm does that make me in this case?)

PS: I realize there's more to the story. You go to a movie and you're voting with your dollars as to what is important. Some went to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in order to make a statement after it got panned by mainstream critics. Some boycotted The Da Vinci Code because they disagreed with its revisionist church history and unorthodox theology ... even as others said, "Hey, it's only a movie." In the tension between Christ and culture, only culture can ever say, "It's only a movie, [so, God, just stay out]." The story of Christ redeeming the entire world has no place for a worldliness apart from Christ. Therefore, what are we saying as Christians when we say, "It's only a movie."?

The Gospel of Baseball: Two Kinds of Baseball

Here in Maine, most people openly root for the Red Sox (while some secretly root for the Yankees) and I ask those stalwart fans:

Why do you hate the Yankees so?

Why did you stick with the Red Sox for so many years when they failed to win the World Series?

And how does it feel now, to have won the World Series twice in four years?

Red Sox playoff lore is replete with scapegoats and villains, most recently:

1978: The Red Sox blew a 14 game lead over the Yankees, resulting in a one-game playoff. Leading 2-0 in the top of the 7th, the Sox surrendered a 3-run homer to Bucky Dent and never led the rest of the game. Manager Don Zimmer took the rap for blowing the lead and the game, and the Sox never played in the postseason again until 1986.

1986: Leading 3-2 in game 6 of the World Series, the Sox needed 6 outs to win their first World Series since 1918. Manager John McNamara replaced star pitcher Roger Clemens, citing Clemen’s request to be taken out due to a blister, but Clemens later denied that he asked to be lifted. The Mets scored a run off reliever Calvin Schiraldi to send the game into extra innings. The Sox led 5-3 in the 10th, but the Mets rallied in the bottom of the inning. Three straight singles off Schiraldi and a wild pitch by Bob Stanley tied the score, and then Mookie Wilson hit a slow grounder between Bill Buckner’s legs, scoring the winning run from second. cNamara had kept Bill Buckner at first base, instead of inserting Dave Stapleton as a defensive sub. The Mets went on to win game 7, and McNamara, Schiraldi, Stanley, and Buckner became the scapegoats.

2003: In game 7 of the AL championship series, with a 5-2 lead and 6 outs between the Sox and their first World Series appearance since 1986, Grady Little left Pedro Martinez in to pitch against the heart of the Yankees’ order. Martinez gave up 3 runs before Little could get a relief pitcher warmed up, and the Sox lost in the 10th inning when Tim Wakefield, pitching relief on 3 days rest surrendered a lead-off home run. Little became the scapegoat and has replaced by Terry Francona.

Since then, the Red Sox have won two World Series (2004 and 2007). The question is: What have you learned from winning?

Hebrews 12:1-6

Commentary

The theme for these verses is laid out in the previous chapter, where faith is depicted as belief that changes how you act:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for ... These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. (Hebrews
11:1-2,39-40)

v1 Greek athletes frequently competed in the nude. The connotation of this verse is to "strip down for action," removing everything that could be a hindrance.

Perseverance is needed in order to produce a good crop (Luke 8:15) or to attain life in the middle of persecution (Luke 21:19).

v2 The word "fixing our eyes" implies away from one thing in order to concentrate on another. Remember a summer sermon on perfection called "We Did Everything Right but Win"? The perfecter of our faith is taking our immature faith and making us mature. The implication in v2-3 is that the maturation process will involve pain and persecution.

v4 This verse troubles me greatly, for it says that what I feel to be troubles and trials don’t amount to much, and my battle against sin is superficial and immature.

v5 Rebuking refers to exposing sin for the sake of bringing correction. (Matt 18:15; Luke 3:19; John 3:20, 8:46, 16:8; 1 Cor. 14:24; Eph. 5:11-13; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, 2:15; James 2:9; Rev. 3:19)

v6 God does not discipline us because of what we are, he disciplines us because of what he is calling us to be, i.e. Christ-like.

Application

There are two kids of baseball teams, and (at least) two kinds of baseball fans ...

the select few who win the prize, and

the majority who lose and spend the off-season ruminating about what might have been.

How is this like your spiritual life?

where have you won? (and what did you do when you won?)

where have you lost? (and what did you do when you lost?)

In theory, a championship team should always be looking ahead to defending their title; however, recent experience suggests that many owners disband a team once a World Series has been achieved:

In 1998, Wayne Huizenga, owner of the Florida Marlins who won the 1997 World Series, sold off most of his good players, citing financial pressures, and the 1998 team finished an NL-worst 54-108.

Likewise Jerry Coangelo, owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks who won the 2001 World Series, had gone heavily into debt signing free agents, and by 2004 the Diamondbacks had dropped to 51-111.

On the other hand, an also-ran team should be trying to make an honest effort to improve. However, teams generally make one of two errors:

either they blame the failure on scapegoats—like Bill Buckner in 1986 or Grady Little in 2003, or

they refuse to make big and necessary changes—arguing that they almost made it—and actually end up doing worse in subsequent seasons. [1]

What if building a winning organization was more important than the actual winning?

Points to Ponder

Speaking spiritually ...

... what if we could see that focusing on spiritual victories is idolatry?

... what if we could see that looking for scapegoats is denial of real problems?

.. what if becoming Christ-like was more important than the actual winning or losing?

What God is calling you to be is more important than what you acheive day-to-day. Perseverance helps you keep your focus on Jesus without losing heart or becoming distracted by day-to-day troubles.

Believe that God is working on you as a long term project.

Believe that God is calling you to become Christ-like.

And now live—and act!—on that belief.

May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart & mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 15:5-6

Endnotes

1 - Consider the recent histories of the New York Yankees and the San Francisco Giants. Although Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds are marquee players, their exorbitant salaries have made it nearly impossible to amass a solid team around either superstar. Since 2003, neither team has won a pennant, & Rodriguez is moving up the lists of most games (1,904 - 42nd) and most home runs (518 - 4th) by a player who has never appeared in a World Series.