Image by SchultLabs http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
                                                                                                                                                 

     This morning I awoke to the voice of Tommie Nelson on the radio.  He was talking about prayer, a very difficult issue for me.  The very first sentence I heard was (more or less) the following:  "We find prayer very difficult primarily for this reason; It is so opposed to what we are!  We are mostly 'fixers' and want to DO something to alleviate difficult situations or solve problems, but we can't!  Prayer is the acknowledgement of our place as creatures--creatures with very little control over our or other's circumstances!" 

[A copy of this image was on or above the bookshelf in the dining room of my mother and father's home for many many years.  I am always  reminded especially of my mother's faith and devotion to our God when I see this image.  I will continually rise up and call her 'Blessed'!]

   Image by CarbonNYC   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en
  And I honestly don’t think we should be afraid of living in the same manner as Jesus lived (see I John 2:6) in this regard. There are obvious differences between ourselves and Jesus. As the Son of God, He instantly saw what was in the minds and hearts of people simply by looking. But you know what?--It doesn’t usually take us very long at all to figure out who has a genuine desire for God and who does not.

During the three years of Jesus’ public ministry, He spent a good bit of time with the masses of people who thronged Him. They were the common people--the beggars, the poor, the sick, the business people (fishermen, tradesmen, tax collectors, farmers and herdsmen), the outcasts and demon-possessed--anyone and everyone who had a deep need in their lives. As a result, he also found Himself among the rich and well educated--the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and lawyers of the law. He listened to them, taught among them, ate with them and debated them from day to day throughout His ministry.

As it turned out, many of the common people, though they did not understand everything about Him, embraced Jesus and followed Him. Most of the Pharisees and experts of the law, did not. And so eventually it all came to a head.

Being in a very public place--the temple, Jesus then dropped the bomb shell in the midst of the crowds, His disciples and the teachers of the law. In a very public way He did something totally and completely outrageous:

And so it went through the remainder of the chapter. Jesus ripped the Pharisees and religious scholars up one side and down the other. And when Jesus was finished ‘outing’ them, how do you suppose the Pharisees felt? Were they a little upset? Do you suppose after the initial shock, they became outraged or scandalized (deeply offended)? Did they and their friends feel Jesus had treated them in a completely unfair and inappropriate manner?

Question: Did Jesus on this occasion violate a principle that He had set forth earlier in His ministry? The principle is in Matthew 18: where He insisted that if a brother sins, "go and show him his fault, just between the two of you" (Matthew 18:15-17). Did Jesus transverse all of the land of Palestine speaking to every last one of the Pharisees and religious scholars regarding His objections and concerns over the way in which they were living and abusing their religious power? Did He later take His disciples back with Him as witnesses to satisfy the requirements of Matthew 18: before He finally ‘outed’ them at the temple in this extreme public manner? A hard-nosed legalism might very well suggest such a mechanistic scenario.

Throughout His three years of public ministry, Jesus had had occasion to spend time with the Pharisees and religious experts. He had talked with them, discussed a wide variety of issues with them and had dined at their tables. They had heard Him teach in their synagogues, in the temple, from a boat along the shores of the Sea of Galilee and in the wilderness and hillsides of Palestine. They had participated in heated debates with Him. They were completely aware of where Jesus stood. And over a span of three years they, for the most part, had refused to listen to Him. They refused to listen to His message because they obviously had no appetite for God. And so in Matthew 23:, Jesus told it to the church. And they didn’t like it. They didn’t like it so much that shortly after this ‘outing’ they saw to it that Jesus was put to death.

Why do you suppose Jesus had done this? In the final analysis, He wanted these people to change their minds (in Biblical terms, He wanted them to repent). Jesus was unwilling that anyone should perish, but that all of them would come to repentance (change their minds) and He was willing to go to extreme and outrageous lengths to accomplish these purposes.

The disciples of Jesus through the years have followed this fine tradition of ‘outing’ people who needed to be confronted with their sins. On Pentecost after Jesus’ death, Peter publically confronted his Israelite brothers: ". . . You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead" (Acts 2:23-24). Stephen openly charged his audience with being as obstinate and stubborn as their forefathers in resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51-53). The Apostle Paul was very specific in his ‘outings’. He said that Hymenaeus and Alexander had shipwrecked their faith (I Timothy 1:19). In his letter to the Philippians he spoke of Euodia and Syntyche (see my discussion of this--link) who were involved in a very serious conflict with each other. Imagine the scandal this may have stirred up among the believers! Did these people suffer deep embarrassment as a result of Paul’s indiscretions? Think of the millions of people through the years who have read about these very public ‘outings’!

Was Paul a ‘loose cannon’--wreckless in what he did, or was there a divine mandate in his outrageous behavior? Paul wanted these people to be utterly shocked and scandalized--for a reason. And when believers ‘out’ other believers today in blatantly scandalous ways which are considered inappropriate or outright wrong, perhaps there is good reason. Perhaps their actions are in the fine tradition of Jesus Christ their Lord.

 Serious (loyal) believers will not use their convictions as convenient tools to trip up other believers.

          

  If my memory serves me correctly, in the early days of my faith, most discussions I had with other young believers revolving around Romans 14: (and I Corinthians 8:) had the strong tendency to degenerate into worthless wrangles over who was the ‘weaker’ and who was the ‘stronger’ brother in regard to any given example of a "disputable matter". As I recall, our discussions frequently revolved around what we should do to avoid "offending" a weaker brother or making him "stumble" (Rom.14:21). At the time I’m not so sure that we had a very good understanding of what Paul was actually saying when he referred to offending or making a weaker brother stumble. Whatever it meant, we were convinced that ‘offending a weaker brother’ was serious business and from Paul’s perspective, it is.

Paul had this to say to the Roman believers; "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" (Romans 14:21 [KJV]).

I guess what fascinates me is that the words Paul used to warn the Romans about their relationships with each other here are used very descriptively in his discussion of Jesus elsewhere: "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whoever believeth on him shall not be shamed" (Romans 9:33 [KJV]).

It may sound strange, but Jesus was not a ‘nice’ Jew. From the very moment of His entrance into this world as a baby born to a very poor young couple in the village of Bethehem, Jesus constantly stirred people up. The report of His birth by the Magi of the East, "troubled" King Herod and all of Jerusalem with him. And so it was, no matter where He went, the ‘pot was being stirred’. Merely by His presence, Jesus consistently was at the center (more accurately, was the center) of ongoing controversy and turmoil.

At one point, things got so bad that even His own followers were deeply disturbed by Jesus’ behavior and teaching. Becoming aware of their grumbling, Jesus confronted them: "Does this [teaching] offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?" (John 6:60-62). Jesus scandalized people (the word ‘offend’ in our Bible translations is the Greek word from which we get the word ‘scandal’). The way He thought and His instructions on how to live and His manner of life were radically different from the customs of the day. And people were constantly and consistently offended. But Jesus wasn’t afraid to do it and never apologized for it (read the entire chapter of Matthew 23: –it is chock full of one offending statement after another directed toward the Pharisees. They became so incensed by His outrageous behavior and teaching that eventually they had Him murdered).

So, the one question that has persistently nagged my mind is this; Was Jesus’ behavior and instruction at odds with what Paul later insisted that the Roman and Corinthian believers should and should not do (see Romans 14: and I Corinthians 8:)? No doubt about it, Jesus was a source of both offense and stumbling among many people who witnessed His life. Why was it He said what He said and did what He did? Didn’t He know any better? Didn’t He understand that He wasn’t supposed to ‘offend’ or make people ‘stumble’? This is all very confusing, isn’t it?!

Let me introduce one other thought and then perhaps we can pull some things together and begin to make some sort of sense to all of this; "Here is my servant whom I have chosen . . . . A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope" (Matthew 12:18-21 [NIV]).

To some people, Jesus was a totally outrageous and wickedly blasphemous bastard (see John 8:41). And every time Jesus healed someone on the Sabbath or opened His mouth, they were entirely and utterly outraged, seeing only red. They were totally offended and stumbled over every word of His message primarily because they had no appetite for anything He ever said or did! Everything He stood for was a ‘slap in the face’--a total affront to their pretentiously religious mentality. They didn’t want to listen to Him because they were committed to their own ways, and so they refused to hear anything He had to say to them--unless, it could be used against Him.

On the other hand, though they were deeply troubled and often perplexed by Jesus, some people refused to be driven from Him. Instead, they seemed to be drawn closer and closer to Him and His ways. They continued to be puzzled by some of the things that He said and did, but the hope that Jesus stirred within them flickered to life and they experienced an immeasurable sense of healing and comfort with which to rebuild the broken relationships that they had managed to all but trash. Because of His gentle and gracious ways with them, their appetite for God, His rightness and kingly rule in their lives became ravenous! They embraced His sovereignty through their faith, refused to stumble or be offended by Him-or


                                                                                                Image by jamescastle  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
                                                                                                                                    

Apostolic Assumption #5— Accountability is primarily personal, not corporate.
 
                          

      I freely acknowledge that a believer is and must be accountable to other believers. Paul definitely touches on this thought in Romans 14: (see verses 13-21). He also addresses this issue in greater detail in his instructions to the believers at Corinth--the entire 8^th chapter of I Corinthians.

      Followers of Jesus Christ have a responsibility in the way they are to behave toward each other. Their behavior must reflect the Spirit of Christ and His righteous manner (the full range of His behavior toward covenant people [true and supposed believers] is clearly documented in the Gospels). He was tender, compassionate and merciful (see John 11:11-36, Matthew 9:36 and Luke 7:36-49), but in His righteousness, He expressed deep anger and disgust toward others--the teachers of the law and Pharisees were particular recipients of His ire (John 2:13-17 and Matthew 23:). Jesus reserved His most severe censure for the Pharisees and experts of the law for a good reason: They were quite knowledgeable of the law of God and overtly advertised their intimate connection to Him. But they were complete and utter frauds--they used their superior knowledge of God for their own purposes! And Jesus exposed them as such in a very extensive and public manner (see the entire 23^rd chapter of Matthew) to their humiliation with no apologies offered!!

      In the Chronicles of Narnia (I believe it is in the 1^st volume), one of the girls (Lucy?) asked Mrs. Beaver if Aslan the great Lion was "safe"? Her reply was, "No, Aslan is not safe, but He is good!" Neither was Jesus. He is not ‘safe’, but He is good and quite honestly this is one of the primary reasons His enemies wanted Him put to death.

      Followers of Jesus can and should be expected to live as He lived (I John 2:6).

As a result, though they must deal with people in an appropriate manner with careful consideration, they must not to be held accountable to church councils or church boards or the "tyrannies" of other believers. They are fully accountable to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and this is exactly what Paul was instructing the Roman believers: ‘At the end of the day, you are responsible to Jesus Christ who is your Lord. He died for you. He purchased you from death. You are alive to Him’:

                               


                                                                                                                                                                                     Image by GreenNetezon      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

Apostolic Assumption #4:[Continued]-- Some truths are more vital/important than others.

     Truth is important. We cannot live at all if we do not have a fair grasp of reality--we must breathe, eat, rest and have a good understanding of how the physical world around us works if we are to survive and flourish. Even so, there are some realities that are much more critical for life than others. Yes, we need to breathe, eat and sleep, but we need God in our lives for life itself! We cannot keep ourselves alive (Ps.22:29), but He can (Ps.33:18-9)!

     We have a book (a large one) with two major divisions called the Old and the New Testaments chock full of information about life. Life is important--we might even say, vital! But where do we begin? How do we decide what is of utmost importance to us in contrast to what is good and helpful for us to understand, but is not a ‘game-buster’? What is critical as opposed to what is simply useful?

     Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian believers addressed some very critical problems that were causing a tremendous amount of confusion and upheaval among their ranks. The resurrection was one of them:

       

     Paul made it quite clear that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as a surety of our own resurrection was at the very heart of the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Excise these realities from the message of the Gospel and it is emptied entirely of its ‘Good News’.

     Jesus had boldly stated to His listeners that the most important command of Scripture was to "love the Lord your God with . . ." all one’s heart, soul and mind (see the previous post & Matthew 22:34-8). But if Jesus is not raised, His claims are all bluster with no substance. He is not the Son of God and He is not the Messiah/the ‘chosen one’ and He is not the Savior of the world. Rather, He is a liar, an imposter and a fraud--and a dead one at that! And if all of this is true, then we are not more than conquerors and we are not victorious over death and we are still powerless--sinners doomed to death and condemnation before God!

     If God the Father did not raise Jesus from death to life, He has discredited himself as a loveless god who has refused to do what he promised to do for his most beloved Son who folly intended to bring His believers with Him to life. So--why should anyone love this god with any sense of passion or intensity at all??!! If he chose not to affirm the legitimacy of Jesus’ claim as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", why would anyone be drawn to him?

     The Father has  raised Jesus to life vindicating Himself and legitimizing Jesus’ claim to be His Beloved Son. He has conquered death. He has extinguished sin’s sting. Jesus has  become the perfect sacrificial lamb for all of humanity. He has  brought us all before the throne of His Father so that we might passionately seek His Kingly rule in our lives above all other things (see Matthew 6:33).  We have  become the objects of His love and forgiveness, and in turn we are challenged and empowered to love and forgive the people around us--those who touch our lives each day (see Matthew 22:38-9 & Matthew 6:14-5).
 
                                 

                    

    I think this is a difficult principle for believers to wrap their minds around. That anything I believe could be relegated to a file or folder marked
‘unimportant’ or ‘non-vital’ just doesn’t ‘feel’ right. Often the process (as we’ve noted previously) of forming strong convictions within our hearts is a
process filled with a lot of stress and turmoil. A strong set of values does not come cheaply! And we are accountable to God for the beliefs that we
hold close. How, therefore, is it possible that any could be deemed as less than essential?

    First off, here is a vital truth that I must embrace (it is of utmost importance): The truths that I have struggled to make my own are just that--they
are mine and mine alone! No one else must be compelled to embrace them simply because I have decided that they are extremely important. Paul strongly
implies this throughout his instructions to the Roman believers in Romans14:, but he actually states this truth in at least a couple different places within
that chapter: