Day 1784 - Fool's Gold or the Real Deal

A sermon shared with First Presbyterian Church, Spring City, TN, October 29, 2017. This post is my subtle reflection on Reformed Theology marking the 500^th year since Martin Luther raised his objections.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Matthew 22:34-40

1 Thessalonians 2:1-8

As a preface to this post, this is an instance where reading the parallel history in Acts helps understand the history and context of Paul’s letter. After establishing the first congregation in Philippi, Paul started the second one in Thessalonica. He ran into great difficulty in both places. The Christians in Philippi stopped buying silver idols and killed the silversmith business. In addition, a slave girl who enriched the silversmiths by telling fortunes harassed Paul as he told the story of the Good News so he silenced her. These acts so angered the silversmiths that they beat him and his workers, and had them jailed. When the locals realized Paul was a Roman citizen they released him from jail and told him to leave town for Thessalonica.  When he arrived there, he went to the synagogue as was his habit and for about three weeks explained the gospel. Many believed. The Jews were angered over these conversions and the instigated a large riot against Paul and his assistants who  were forced to leave in the middle of the night. The local population continued to harass the congregation. Paul wrote this letter to console and encourage the Thessalonians. His principal message in the midst of this chaos and peril was “live to please the Lord,” keeping their eye on the future grace that awaits them in the comfort of Jesus. In our reading Paul’s appeals to the Thessalonians by describing the reasons that caused him to come in order to ensure they know his affection for them goes as far as risking his safety.

                                                  *       *       *

Why call this post “Fool’s Gold or the Real Deal?”

You probably know what fool’s gold is. It is iron sulfide, a mineral that looks for all the world like a gold nugget until after you buy it and have it assayed in a lab. Fool’s gold emphasizes the main point Paul makes in his letter to the Thessalonians – that he is the real deal, genuine, not a huckster.

 As you read all Paul’s letters you cannot avoid his constant challenge to the listeners to know and model his behavior as theirs. My preface notes Paul’s cites his own living experiences of being harassed by his opponents, being beaten, chased out of town, imprisoned (and eventually executed) for proclaiming the Good News. His perseverance in preaching the good news in the face of that hostility shows that he takes his calling very seriously.

Certainly, in our modern day we look more than a little suspiciously at anyone who tells us that they are the epitome of good behavior and we should model theirs. It is a very, very rare person who can say that with humility and be justified in saying it. But Paul has street credibility.

Listen again to what Paul says (I paraphrase):

“You yourselves know, brothers and sisters, that … we had already suffered and been shamefully mistreated at Philippi (but) had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in spite of great opposition… We didn’t try to convince you by lies, bad intentions or trickery because God approved us to proclaim the Gospel (as our duty) …not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts. As God is our witness, we never tried to flatter you, or try to preach to you so you would give us money, and we never sought praise from you or anyone else though we might have asked for support as apostles of Christ. We treated you gently like a nurse treats her children because you are so precious to us that we are determined to share with you the gospel of God even at the risk of harm to us.”

Do you see his two main points? First, you cannot deny that Paul and his associates came with good intentions because already we know he had suffered in Philippi and again here in here in Thessalonica for telling them the Good News. Why would Paul endure that and risk more abuse unless he was called to do it and felt so positively about the Thessalonians.

Second, we should know Paul and his workers do it because they want God to see that their actions reflect their love of God, and show that neither lies, trickery or love of money is in their hearts, but only love for the Thessalonians.

Most translations muddy this message. They render the Greek in verse 4, something like this, “we speak, not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts.”  That word “tests” leads most people to think God puts traps before us to test whether we are good or bad. Some go further and say it means “God never gives you anything that you can’t manage.” I think both of these ideas miss the mark completely.

I’m reminded of a friend who regularly frets that “God is testing him.” But, think about it. If God desires to test us by of tempting us to do wrong or right, then it means we have the capacity to choose to do good not bad.

Paul best answers that matter. He lamented on our inability to conform to the Law, “I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate...For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it” (Romans 7:14-25). Now if we want to argue with Paul about that, what do we say about these words from Jesus in response to a questioner who called him “good,” “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Matt. 19:16-22, Luke 18: 14-25).

If you think about it, the idea of God testing us to determine if we are good enough for salvation is repugnant to the whole theology of the NT. If we could choose to do good, why would we need the grace of reconciliation with God that Jesus brings? The very existence of the Son of God as a man walking the earth acknowledges we have no hope of being good outside grace. We will fail the test of a sinless life under the Law. The whole point about being reconciled to God is that it is unmerited and comes to us by God’s grace alone.

My friend who worries over being tested, like so many of us, struggles with guilt, just as Paul did. We struggle with the idea that our unrighteous acts and thoughts mean we are not good enough for God. We are harder on our self that God is. We have a hard time accepting the fact that God loves and forgives us even though we are sinners. I suspect we have trouble accepting God’s forgiveness because often we cannot forgive others as God forgives us. That may be the root of the problem. We hold grudges and we beat ourselves up with guilt. But we are forgiven.

Paul, if he were here, would be shouting “Amen” at these words and probably yell, “If we are forgiven, does that mean we should sin boldly because we have an out?”

That question goes to the real meaning of “test” in these words to the Thessalonians. The context of this Greek word that is translated “test” in the NRSV actually has two meanings dealing with the senses. It can mean assay the quality of something - what the test lab does when we bring in a piece of gold jewelry. The lab assays it to determine if it is pure gold, a diluted10 caret gold, gold plated metal, or iron pyrite - “Fool’s Gold.” It carries also the sense of discovering something is genuine by actually using it. This is the sense Paul has.  It doesn’t carry the sense of challenging a person to choose to do good or evil, it means God looks at (examines) Paul to see if he is genuine, “walking the talk.”

Paul tells the Thessalonians that he knows God has called his cohorts and him to ministry of the Gospel, to take care of the spiritual life of the Thessalonians. He knows God observes him and his workers in action to discover the righteousness in their hearts. That is what “test” means here.

You may think it is a subtle difference - and it is. But it is an important subtle difference. God is well aware of human frailty. Jesus came to earth to free us from sin, to create a desire in us, to hear “go and sin no more,” as forgiveness and a call to live the Christian life.

God isn’t sitting in heaven tossing stumbling blocks at you as you walk in the world to test whether you are pure. The world has enough stumbling blocks simply by its existence to attract us to putting love of self above human relationships and our relationship with God. God does not need to add more trouble to our mix. Paul’s message flows from the message last week about giving what belongs to Caesar to Caesar and to God what belongs to God – you have to serve somebody.

I pray you do not, but you may find yourself in a predicament far beyond what you can deal with. Eventually Paul did but Paul never lost the encouragement of his faith. He tells us repeatedly that no matter what misery the world piles on us, every Christian has a guaranteed lifeline. We will see glory and we will enjoy God’s grace forever.

There is no doubt we face challenging tasks as Christians. These challenges aren’t there to trick us, or test if we can do the right thing. They are part of the world. Paul and Jesus tell us that when God looks at us, it is not to judge, but to see how well we seek to keep compassion in our heart for our brothers and sisters as we face those challenges in the world. Remember the benediction I sometimes use, “May the Lord bless you and keep you, may he look upon you and smile?” Our actions reveal to God what is in our heart. We are called to live a life of action that reveals the good news to others – that is what makes the Lord smile. That is what “testing” meant to Paul.

When you start beating yourself up over your shortcomings, remember that God loves you and forgives you through Jesus Christ.

Paul makes the point in a way I hope you appreciate. He uses legal language. When you are alleged to have broken a law, or arrested, a grand jury may consider if the charges merit a trial. That is the way the law works in America. Paul says God’s forgiveness, this reconciliation through Jesus means our faith reckons us righteous. To be reckoned righteous means that you are absolved of any guilt even before you are dragged to a grand jury. It is as if the sin never happened.

That is a hard thing to get your head around. It is why it is so hard to forgive our self. Even if we do, forgiveness does not give you a license to sin boldly, but it gives you a pure heart, a clean slate and a desire to work every day to be a more righteous person.

October 31 is the 500^th anniversary of Martin Luther’s launching of the Reformation, so let’s put these ideas in that context. When I say,”Jesus Christ reconciled us to God,” it means we are justified before God as his beloved children, just like Paul described the Thessalonians. The key word is justified – the slate is wiped clean. Then, every day we have the opportunity to grow spiritually, to work at being a better Christian person, to make every effort to love our neighbor as a habit. This means we are justified by our faith in God and we work to become a more sanctified, or righteous Christian who loves not judges. The key words are being justified and sanctified.

We are justified before God by Jesus, and we have it as our duty to become more sanctified as Christians. As Jesus said, the road is narrow and hard. You’ll have good days and bad days, but as a Christian, Jesus is always there with an outstretched, helping hand.

It boils down to the same question that I asked a few weeks back. Are you ensuring your faith is genuine by living it? Paul did something that few humans have the courage and strength to do in the 21^st Century. We make a big mistake not to take his words in this passage to heart as describing how we should live with our fellow Christians. I paraphrase it, “So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you the gospel of God as if you were our beloved children, even if doing so threatens to harm us.”

Day 1777 - You've Got To Serve Sombody

An edited version of a sermon on a hard reading shared with First Presbyterian Church, Spring City, TN Oct. 22, 2017

1 Thessalonians 1: 1-10
Matthew 22: 15-22

See also Philippians 2:14-18

“Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s”… What do you think that means?

One commentary, p 634, on Matthew I often read in my preparation for sermons says this about this passage: “Jesus was no Zealot or revolutionary who advocated the overthrow of the Roman government. But neither did he put priority upon loyalty to secular government. If one rendered to the state its restricted due, all the more was one to render to God his unrestricted due (that is), the totality of one’s being and substance, one’s existence, was to be rendered to God and nothing less. Loyalty to Caesar must always be set in the larger context and be relativized by the full submission of the self to God.”

Notice he says, “Render the state its restricted due,” and continues, “All the more (i)s one to render to God his unrestricted due - the totality of one’s being and substance, one’s existence and nothing less.”

I don’t know your reaction, but this statement is a contradiction. How can one give even restricted loyalty to secular government and at the same time, “Render to God the totality of one’s being and substance, one’s existence?”

Perhaps this contradiction is exactly what Jesus intended for us. Certainly, if we search the earlier comments by Jesus in Matthew and in the other gospels, we find a continuing thread that God demands a single-minded loyalty from us. After all, Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters.” This passage isn’t justifying a “two-state solution.”

The evidence is everywhere that a more absolute loyalty is expected. Satan tempted Jesus in Matthew 4: 8-10 with the offer, “Worship me and I’ll give you all the kingdoms of the world.” Jesus replied by quoting Deuteronomy 6:13, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone.” In Matthew 12:18-21 Jesus says that he comes to proclaim justice to the nations, implying his higher authority.

Every time Jesus is questioned about his authority his reply points to a demand for loyalty and faith that exceeds anything we give to worldly rulers. It culminated in the questions posed to him before his crucifixion. First the religious leaders ask, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?”, and then Pilate asked, “Are you the King of the Jews (implying not Herod).” The answer is “Yes” (or “you say so”) to both questions.

The Christian congregations in the first 200-300 years took these scriptures strictly to heart.  When Jesus says, “Render to God what is due God,” to them it meant everything.

The earliest Christians thought the question by the Herodians about paying the emperor’s tax was heresy. The Herodians were Jews who gave primary loyalty to the Jewish puppet King Herod installed by Rome, not to God. Herodians were the heretics. The early believers took loyalty to God so seriously that they would risk death before wearing the uniform of a Roman soldier (Tertulian, Of The Crown, chapter 11) because service to the state challenged absolute loyalty to God. This is a disturbing position today, but for them, the reason was obvious.

This is what I think is going on with our difficulty with this passage. If you are familiar with the beginnings of the Reformation, particularly the writings of Martin Luther, one of the main objections by Martin Luther to the pope’s authority deals with interpretation of scripture. No person has authority to interpret scripture for another. He based this objection on his translation of  1 Corinthians 14:30 : “If something better is revealed to anyone who is already sitting and listening to another person explaining God’s word, then the one who is speaking shall hold his peace and listen to the other.” 
This is called personal revelation. The problem with personal revelation is that it is personal. (In modern times we say that the grounding of personal revelation is based on prayer and discernment and discussion with others and especially with biblically educated persons. The problem still remains that the majority may well embrace something later perceived as unrighteous, e.g., slavery. But as I will show, this is the inescapable challenge facing Reformed thought!)

Influential religious leaders and their followers in towns and states read scripture with eyes colored by the ideas and cultural values of their particular city or state. All reformed denominations, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, and so on, came into existence in this manner.  A city or country embraced the interpretation of one or more of its religious leaders and it became their view of the gospel. (The irony is they didn’t necessarily decide for themselves but let a leader decide!) Each city or state took its interpretation so seriously that if you were an adherent of one of the other denominations and wandered into the city, you risked your life.

This kind of interpretive bias existed also in the earliest congregations up until the Catholic Church came into existence (before 400 CE). There were large followings that claimed only the NT was valid and the entire OT should be rejected. Others (ebionites)  argued that if Jesus was God, then he could not really be present as a man or be killed (Greek influence). The person who was crucified must have been a man who was a stand-in for God. There were many other ideas we know very little about because often the ones who lost the argument often were killed.

Even the idea of the early Church to hold the government at arm’s length inspired by this passage in Matthew gave way in the time of Constantine, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (~300 CE) to the idea that the Empire should protect the Church.

In the Reformation, this church-Roman Empire collaboration became a local government-denomination collaboration. Each denomination relied upon the local government to protect it from other denominations and control general unrighteousness in the community. As an example, John Calvin in Geneva created a session-like body called a consistory. If someone had been sleeping through a sermon, Calvin might have the local sheriff arrest the guy and bring him to the consistory meeting where he would be questioned, “What was the title of my sermon last Sunday?” If the person could not answer satisfactorily, or gave the wrong answer, Calvin had the sheriff sentence the person on bread and water for a time as punishment.

This state-denomination collaboration denied religious liberty to others and led to the founding of the United States and the French Revolution that shattered this state-denomination collaboration. The foundation of freedom and liberty in the United States originally gave all denominations equal protection under the law from persecution, at least in theory (those fleeing persecution found it easy to exercise religious discrimination), so most of us give little thought to this passage in Matthew that says total loyalty to God is demanded of us.

The old idea in the early church that it is wrong to serve in the military is mostly a relic of that church lost in modern times, except in America we offer allowances to some such as the Quakers who take the principle of non-violence symbolized by the life of Christ quite seriously. We give them and others whose conscience does not allow violence forbearance in the demand for military service.

For the most part, we American Christians exercise our patriotism because we shine as an example compared to most governments of the world. We are the source of so much good for the world that we often neglect the evil our leaders do in our name or the name of religion for political reasons. But Christians have an obligation not to overlook the bad things that have been done, and persist, in the name of country such as slavery, lynching, imprisoning people who opened their business on Sunday, imprisoned people who had a different sexual orientation, sending boats arriving in American ports carrying Jews fleeing the death camps to America back to Germany rather than admitting them, condoning the government assassinating leaders and supporting dictators to ensure the flow of oil or other essential resources.

We can argue rightfully the military of Rome was antithetical to Christianity  (Caesar used identical words to Jesus claiming the role of savior) and not comparable to military in democratic countries. But nevertheless, one uncomfortable problem remains - It was pointed out by Reinhold Niebuhr in the years leading up to the United States entering WWII war against Germany. 

The problem is that government and institutions are motivated by self-preservation. Decisions are made at a lower ethical and moral standard in order to ensure that self-preservation than expected of Christians who face eternal life no matter what happens. Jesus says (Luke 12:4,5) “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

Jesus (God) does not let us off easy. This contradiction between what we think is moral and what we think scripture tells us is moral is possible because we live in a world of relative plenty and freedom seldom being required to think about the difference.

There was a great comic in Friday’s Chattanooga Times Free Press, Non Sequitur. It is a single frame with a caption, “The Road Much Less Traveled.” There is a man standing on a path that forks. One fork leads up a steep hill and has a sign beside it that points up the path on the hill. The other fork continues forward on flat ground. Many footprints mark and follow the flat path. There are a few footprints showing some people have stopped, turned and looked up the hill thinking about following that path, but there are no footprints going up the hill. The sign at the fork pointing up the hill says, “The Moral High Ground.” A warning below the arrow says, “Practicing what you preach is required.”

The ultimate problem with the coin holding the image of the emperor’s face is that even today we face that same question and demand for an answer, “Exactly what does it mean to give God what loyalty is due God so that we practice what we believe?”

As a pastor supposedly schooled in good Reformed thought, I can’t stand and tell you what to believe or the right thing to do as a Christian except in the most obvious situations. I can tell you we are in a sail boat on a storm-tossed sea of moral choices, where the storm forces this question constantly, ”What is the right thing to do?” What we can do together is talk and pray as we explore what scripture says and what we think it means to be a loyal Christian so we both do a good job of practicing what we preach.  

       I can assure you from my own personal experience, it is not always comfortable to take loyalty to God seriously but it is the price we pay for believing we must understand and make good decisions and choices in life guided by scripture.  Everybody has to serve somebody. Who do you serve?