MESSAGE: Faith In The Messenger (podcast)
SCRIPTURE: Luke 7.11-17
This passage is unique to Luke's gospel - that is, he's the only one who has any record of Jesus healing this widow's son at Nain. When we come across a passage like this, that's unique to a specific gospel, it's important to ask why the author felt that it was necessary to include it in his gospel. Check the link above and read the passage before you go any further. What follows are some reasons why I think Luke recorded this miracle. (Note: we went over the first two at SHOUT on Sunday, so I won't go into them here. Download the podcast if you want to hear about those.)
1) To show Jesus' power.
2) To show that Jesus was God in the flesh.
3) To show that religious laws and traditions did not apply to acts of compassion. In touching the funeral casket, Jesus committed a religious no-no. This act would've made him "unclean," and he would've been required to go through a purification ritual. The fact that Luke notes this action is worthy of note.
4) To show that Jesus had compassion on the lowest in society. The fact that this woman is a widow is significant. In 1st century society, women were pretty powerless. They depended upon men for their living: their food, their shelter, their way of life, etc. Women were not typically allowed to work, so they had to depend on the head male of the family. Single women depended on their families. Married women depended on their husbands. If the husband died, the woman would then depend on her oldest son to care for her. This woman in Luke 7 had neither - she was a widow, and her only son had died. This would have left her utterly defenseless and helpless in society. She literally had no way to feed or provide for herself. Knowing this, Jesus has compassion on her and raises her son from the dead. Thus, her hope for living (not to mention her relationship with her son) is restored. Her son is now able to care for her. Her physical needs will be met.
Several times throughout scripture you will read that God has a special concern for widows and orphans. Why these two groups in particular? Because they had no one to care for them. As described above, women needed a male to provide for them. Orphans had absolutely no one. They had not family, no relatives, no parents, nothing. The best they could do was beg or steal, or perhaps, prostitute themselves in some way. Thus, no one was lower than widows and orphans were. And God says throughout scripture that he loves widows and orphans, and that his followers should love and care for them as well. Take a look at how God feels about widows and orphans:
Exodus 22.22: You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.
Deuteronomy 10.18: He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.
Deuteronomy 27.19: Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.
Psalm 68.5: Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.
Isaiah 1.17: Learn to do good; seek justice,correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless,plead the widow’s cause.
Jeremiah 22.3: Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.
James 1.27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
These are just a few of the hundreds of verses in the Bible that talk about not only the plight of widows and orphans, but also how God feels about them, and how we are to feel about them.
The reason that God loves these people and wants them to be treated fairly and with compassion is because of their helplessness. And God truly desires to care for and love the helpless. I think it is because the helpless have nowhere else to turn; they cannot provide for themselves; they have no one to provide for them; they have no hope of anything good in this life. And it is when one realizes this (everyone, if known for their true spiritual state, is a helpless widow or orphan - they just don't realize it), that they are helpless, it is a very rational and expected thing to turn to God for help. It boils down to this: widows and orphans are humble. They have nothing in and of themselves, so they will seek deliverance from God.
In this passage from Luke, Jesus shows compassion for this widow - the least in society, and shows us how to live and act as his followers: we are to have compassion on those in society who cannot help themselves, have no one to turn to, and have no hope of anything in this life. In commanding us to care for widows and orphans, God commands us to care for the least of these in society. Why? Because God cares, and so should we. And also, because through our compassion, and their humility, they might see Christ and come to him.
At SHOUT we looked briefly at how we are the representation of Christ on this earth - through our thoughts, desires, words, and actions. The world sees the power of Christ through what we do and say on earth. And we are messengers of Christ by taking his message of salvation to the world. We preach as he preached. Basically, everything that Jesus said and did while he was on this earth is the model that we are to follow in life. We are the representation of Christ on this earth. What better way to represent than care for the least of these?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Seeing Isn't Always Believing
MESSAGE: Uncommon Faith (podcast)
SCRIPTURE: Luke 7.1-10
The centurion in Luke 7 showed an amazing faith - a faith that was so strong that Jesus said he hadn't yet seen anything like it in his life. At SHOUT, we looked at why this was, and what made the centurion's faith so remarkable. Check out the podcast if you want to hear about that. What I want to do here, however, is look at one other element that we didn't discuss in SHOUT that really made the centurion's faith amazing: the fact that the centurion had never once seen Jesus.
Luke 7.3 says, "When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant." It would seem that the only knowledge of Jesus that the centurion possessed was what he had heard about him from other people. He had never seen Jesus, never seen his miracles, never seen his power first hand. He'd never even heard his teaching for himself - he had only heard what others had to say about him.
And yet, despite his lack of personal experience in who or what Jesus was, all he needed was a testimony about what this man named Jesus could do, and he was ready to believe that Jesus had the power to heal his servant. That's pretty amazing. Believing just by word of mouth!
We often use the phrase, "seeing is believing" in conversation, meaning that in order for me to believe something, I must first see it in action. Or in other words, my visual observance of an action that proves a statement will be the evidence that I need to convicne me of its truth. The centurion, however, didn't need to see in order to believe - he was willing to put himself out there and trust Jesus. To me, this fact is absolutely mind boggling, and brings out a couple points:
1. To some extent, blind faith is necessary for believing in Jesus. Blind faith doesn't have a good reputation in our society (for some good reasons, in my opinion), and people who believe without proof are often times seen as dumb sheep willing to follow anyone anywhere. But to another extent, a certain amount of blind faith is necessary (and virtuous) for the believer. There are some aspects of the Christian faith that simply cannot be "proven" and must simply be believed. In a couple weeks we're going to come across a section of scripture where John the Baptist seems to question his faith (or more accurately, doesn't believe by blind faith). This is a healthy (and essential) practice for the faithful as well, which we'll get into later.
2. Sometimes, the most powerful proof that an individual can receive is the testimony of experience. The centurion believed because he listened to the experience of the people who told him about Jesus. He trusted their experience, and made decisions based upon the testimony of Jesus' power. He hadn't yet experienced Jesus' power, compassion, and mercy, but he knew people who did, and their testimony was enough to cause him to believe. This is also true in our day. I've personally seen and heard several people who, after hearing the gospel, asked the person who shared it with them how they knew all the things they were talking about were true. The answer is that I have decided to trust Jesus, and I put into practice all the things that the Bible instructs me on, and they have come true in my life. The proof is in the believer's experience, which then translates into a testimony, and the testimony translates into an avenue by which others can believe. All that to say that one of the answers to the unbeliever's question of "Why should I believe?" is that I have believed, and I can testify to the truth of what I am saying.
That's what we see with the centurion: he believed the reports that he heard about Jesus, and then he acted on those reports by "blindly" believing them, and then translating that belief into faith in the power of Jesus.
SCRIPTURE: Luke 7.1-10
The centurion in Luke 7 showed an amazing faith - a faith that was so strong that Jesus said he hadn't yet seen anything like it in his life. At SHOUT, we looked at why this was, and what made the centurion's faith so remarkable. Check out the podcast if you want to hear about that. What I want to do here, however, is look at one other element that we didn't discuss in SHOUT that really made the centurion's faith amazing: the fact that the centurion had never once seen Jesus.
Luke 7.3 says, "When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant." It would seem that the only knowledge of Jesus that the centurion possessed was what he had heard about him from other people. He had never seen Jesus, never seen his miracles, never seen his power first hand. He'd never even heard his teaching for himself - he had only heard what others had to say about him.
And yet, despite his lack of personal experience in who or what Jesus was, all he needed was a testimony about what this man named Jesus could do, and he was ready to believe that Jesus had the power to heal his servant. That's pretty amazing. Believing just by word of mouth!
We often use the phrase, "seeing is believing" in conversation, meaning that in order for me to believe something, I must first see it in action. Or in other words, my visual observance of an action that proves a statement will be the evidence that I need to convicne me of its truth. The centurion, however, didn't need to see in order to believe - he was willing to put himself out there and trust Jesus. To me, this fact is absolutely mind boggling, and brings out a couple points:
1. To some extent, blind faith is necessary for believing in Jesus. Blind faith doesn't have a good reputation in our society (for some good reasons, in my opinion), and people who believe without proof are often times seen as dumb sheep willing to follow anyone anywhere. But to another extent, a certain amount of blind faith is necessary (and virtuous) for the believer. There are some aspects of the Christian faith that simply cannot be "proven" and must simply be believed. In a couple weeks we're going to come across a section of scripture where John the Baptist seems to question his faith (or more accurately, doesn't believe by blind faith). This is a healthy (and essential) practice for the faithful as well, which we'll get into later.
2. Sometimes, the most powerful proof that an individual can receive is the testimony of experience. The centurion believed because he listened to the experience of the people who told him about Jesus. He trusted their experience, and made decisions based upon the testimony of Jesus' power. He hadn't yet experienced Jesus' power, compassion, and mercy, but he knew people who did, and their testimony was enough to cause him to believe. This is also true in our day. I've personally seen and heard several people who, after hearing the gospel, asked the person who shared it with them how they knew all the things they were talking about were true. The answer is that I have decided to trust Jesus, and I put into practice all the things that the Bible instructs me on, and they have come true in my life. The proof is in the believer's experience, which then translates into a testimony, and the testimony translates into an avenue by which others can believe. All that to say that one of the answers to the unbeliever's question of "Why should I believe?" is that I have believed, and I can testify to the truth of what I am saying.
That's what we see with the centurion: he believed the reports that he heard about Jesus, and then he acted on those reports by "blindly" believing them, and then translating that belief into faith in the power of Jesus.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Deeper
I'm super excited for this. It's a conference put on by Living Waters that's being held in October in Atlanta. It's my first trip down south, plus a lot of my favorite speakers and guys I really admire will be speaking at the event. I can't wait.
I'm probably most excited to see Paul Washer. I got turned on to his preaching a couple years ago, and haven't been the same since. He pulls no punches, and doesn't apologize for the sometimes for being the vessel used to communicate God's rebuke. If you've never heard of him, get a taste by watching this video. It'll take you about an hour to watch (I heard one guy call this sermon a "56 minute kidney punch" - that's pretty accurate), but it's well worth it.
And there's also Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, and Ken Ham.
If I were able to line up all the speakers I ever wanted to hear preach in my life, these guys would all make the list. The Mrs. and I are going to make a week of it and drive down. Like I said, I can't wait.
I Complain A Lot
My choices for TV tonight were "The Academy" on channel 29, WWE Wrestling on channel 23, something on channel 9 that I can't remember, and "Stand Up To Cancer" on channels 4, 5, and 11 (technically just 4 and 11 for me, since I don't get channel 5 for some reason). Not being interested in "The Academy," wrestling, or whatever was on channel 9, I chose to watch celebrities stand up for cancer.
The title of this blog is "I Complain A Lot," because I think I do...and I don't know why. Some people say I'm a pessimist. I prefer to think of myself as a realist - identifying the situation for what it is (which admittedly, usually sucks - there's that pessimism thing again). This was the predicament that I found myself in while watching the Stand Up To Cancer event.
So then, allow me to share briefly my pessimistic (yet realistic and, I believe, accurate) observations:
1. Celebrities need to stand up for literacy. Man, almost every single one of them stumbled over their cue card lines. Learn to read people! Sound out the words...you can do it.
2. Jack Black made an appearance and said something to the affect of: "I know all of you at home are looking at us celebrities and saying to yourself, 'If those people would just donate 2% of their salaries, they could do way more than I ever could,' so I'm here to get these gravy trains to pony up." Then he went about on a humorous attempt to muscle all the celebrities into donating. He even told someone to get him Steven Spielberg on the line. The bit was humorous, but I still didn't see the celebrities ponying up the cash. The ended the bit by showing Black scream in the face of some other actor, telling him to give. Well? Did he donate? It was meant to be funny, but what are they doing? What are they giving? I don't know, so I can't make a judgment, but I hope it's a lot...or at least as much as they're encouraging others to give in comparison to their own salaries.
3. I always feel like I'm being preached to by celebrities at these things. It's like they've got it all figured out and they're imparting their wisdom upon me. Celebrities, just because you are celebrities doesn't mean you're smarter or more compassionate than me. I realize this feeling might be completely self-derived, but nonetheless, it is my pessimistic (realistic) nature.
4. Can I watch at least one pop culture endorsed charity event without being appealed to by the liberal agenda? Man, I'm sick of celebrities (and people who worship celebrities) telling me who I should vote for and what I should think. Just entertain me. I don't care about what you think...just like you don't care about what I think. Let's keep it that way.
5. The biggest impression that I was left with was the hopelessness of death for those not in Christ. No, this issue wasn't specifically addressed, but allow me to explain: there was such an outcry for people to have mercy and give money for the sake of prolonging life. That is to say that the main drive of the fundraiser was to appeal to the desire to live. This is a legitimate desire, to be sure, but it is ultimately fatalistic - literally. Your life will come to an end, be it by cancer, AIDS, hunger, disease, whatever. You will die. No matter how hard you try to prolong your life, you will ultimately succumb to the pulls of death. No amount of money or good will can change this fact. It is in this sense that our efforts to prolong life are useless (no, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to prolong life - we should, and this is a virtuous endeavor. I am merely saying that fulfillment and satisfaction that is derived from prolonging life is misplaced and hopeless). Even our best efforts to fight disease and age will not succeed. Death comes to us all.
In one of my seminary classes this past summer, we were talking about "holistic" mission - ministering to the "whole" person - spiritually, physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. The prof used the following example to prove his point: there is a cholera outbreak in the village of Kunkwa somewhere in Africa, and people are dying quickly. Who or what is needed? A nurse? A counselor? An evangelist? Or an engineer? Each of these people would be beneficial, andI think that in the ideal world, all of them are needed. But that's not the answer my prof was fishing for. The obvious answer, if people are dying quickly, is "a nurse." Thus, in his view, we must send nurses. Who would disagree with that? Of course those people need a nurse! But that is not where it ends (or even where it begins, for that matter). To think that all problems are solved by the presence of a nurse is foolish (and to be clear, I don't think my prof would say that). But that is often the case, in missions, and in fundraisers for cancer research - we think that once we meet a person's physical needs, the job is done. Not true. Cancer patients who beat the disease and go on to live long, rich, lives will still die - if not from cancer then from something else.
The problem isn't cancer - it's sin.
The title of this blog is "I Complain A Lot," because I think I do...and I don't know why. Some people say I'm a pessimist. I prefer to think of myself as a realist - identifying the situation for what it is (which admittedly, usually sucks - there's that pessimism thing again). This was the predicament that I found myself in while watching the Stand Up To Cancer event.
So then, allow me to share briefly my pessimistic (yet realistic and, I believe, accurate) observations:
1. Celebrities need to stand up for literacy. Man, almost every single one of them stumbled over their cue card lines. Learn to read people! Sound out the words...you can do it.
2. Jack Black made an appearance and said something to the affect of: "I know all of you at home are looking at us celebrities and saying to yourself, 'If those people would just donate 2% of their salaries, they could do way more than I ever could,' so I'm here to get these gravy trains to pony up." Then he went about on a humorous attempt to muscle all the celebrities into donating. He even told someone to get him Steven Spielberg on the line. The bit was humorous, but I still didn't see the celebrities ponying up the cash. The ended the bit by showing Black scream in the face of some other actor, telling him to give. Well? Did he donate? It was meant to be funny, but what are they doing? What are they giving? I don't know, so I can't make a judgment, but I hope it's a lot...or at least as much as they're encouraging others to give in comparison to their own salaries.
3. I always feel like I'm being preached to by celebrities at these things. It's like they've got it all figured out and they're imparting their wisdom upon me. Celebrities, just because you are celebrities doesn't mean you're smarter or more compassionate than me. I realize this feeling might be completely self-derived, but nonetheless, it is my pessimistic (realistic) nature.
4. Can I watch at least one pop culture endorsed charity event without being appealed to by the liberal agenda? Man, I'm sick of celebrities (and people who worship celebrities) telling me who I should vote for and what I should think. Just entertain me. I don't care about what you think...just like you don't care about what I think. Let's keep it that way.
5. The biggest impression that I was left with was the hopelessness of death for those not in Christ. No, this issue wasn't specifically addressed, but allow me to explain: there was such an outcry for people to have mercy and give money for the sake of prolonging life. That is to say that the main drive of the fundraiser was to appeal to the desire to live. This is a legitimate desire, to be sure, but it is ultimately fatalistic - literally. Your life will come to an end, be it by cancer, AIDS, hunger, disease, whatever. You will die. No matter how hard you try to prolong your life, you will ultimately succumb to the pulls of death. No amount of money or good will can change this fact. It is in this sense that our efforts to prolong life are useless (no, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to prolong life - we should, and this is a virtuous endeavor. I am merely saying that fulfillment and satisfaction that is derived from prolonging life is misplaced and hopeless). Even our best efforts to fight disease and age will not succeed. Death comes to us all.
In one of my seminary classes this past summer, we were talking about "holistic" mission - ministering to the "whole" person - spiritually, physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. The prof used the following example to prove his point: there is a cholera outbreak in the village of Kunkwa somewhere in Africa, and people are dying quickly. Who or what is needed? A nurse? A counselor? An evangelist? Or an engineer? Each of these people would be beneficial, andI think that in the ideal world, all of them are needed. But that's not the answer my prof was fishing for. The obvious answer, if people are dying quickly, is "a nurse." Thus, in his view, we must send nurses. Who would disagree with that? Of course those people need a nurse! But that is not where it ends (or even where it begins, for that matter). To think that all problems are solved by the presence of a nurse is foolish (and to be clear, I don't think my prof would say that). But that is often the case, in missions, and in fundraisers for cancer research - we think that once we meet a person's physical needs, the job is done. Not true. Cancer patients who beat the disease and go on to live long, rich, lives will still die - if not from cancer then from something else.
The problem isn't cancer - it's sin.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sick.
It's official: being sick blows. I don't think it's feeling gross that bothers me, it's more the lack of feeling normal. You don't know how good normal is until your condition is sub-normal. This is day three. I think I'm on the mend, but then again, that's what I thought yesterday too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)