Canon Fodder

Knowing me to be a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, whose birthday was just celebrated on January 6^th, you'd think that I just can't wait to see all the new TV shows about him that are soon to be released. But I am fairly sure that we will not be seeing the same sleuth that we read of in the 4 novels and 56 short stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was not a fan of the Netflix series in which Dr. Watson recruited children to fight supernatural threats because Holmes was too strung out on drugs. And I am not sure if I will enjoy the series that gives him a heretofore unknown daughter, despite the fact that I like the actor who will portray Holmes. And I really don't see the point of the one that is all about Watson fighting Moriarty alone after the presumed death of Holmes. The friendship of the detective and the doctor is at the heart of the stories. It would be like doing a Muppet movie with Miss Piggy but not Kermit. It's their chemistry we love.

Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character in film and TV. At least 72 actors have played the great detective but, as you can imagine, not all did a good job. And even before Doyle's death in 1930, fans have written their own Sherlock Holmes stories. And this fan fiction has been a mixed lot. Very few manage to deliver the whole package that we find in the originals: the recognizable characters, the sharp dialogue, the intriguing plots and the dramatic moments that will forever live in our memories. And frequently the new stories just seem like an excuse to put Holmes in a romance or put him up against a supernatural foe or have him solve the Jack the Ripper murders or have him travel in time. Occasionally the author does manage to pull it off and get the feel of the characters and Watson's narration and the atmosphere right. But authors like Laurie King, Nicholas Meyer, Lindsey Faye, Ellery Queen and Michael and Molly Hardwick are outnumbered by mediocre writers, who have more enthusiasm than skill. Usually such pastiches disappoint because they fail to capture the true spirit of Sherlock Holmes.

Our sermon suggestion question is “Why are some books not in the Bible?” By this I take it that the writer means, not the Apocrypha which is found between the Old and New Testaments in Roman Catholic and some Anglican Bibles, but other ancient books, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Assumption of Moses, 3^rd and 4^th Maccabees, etc. Scholars classify these books as pseudepigrapha, that is, books written by people who adopted the name of a prophet or apostle as a pseudonym to give their works authority. These books consist of retellings of Bible stories with a lot of legendary material added, apocalypses with lots of extra details not found in the Bible, as well as those banned gospels that the media, including You Tubers, makes such a fuss about.

Why didn't they make it into the Bible? It's like asking why the script for the 2010 film in which Sherlock Holmes fights dinosaurs was not included in copies of The Complete Sherlock Holmes. It's not only because it is awful. Even very good and fun pastiches like The Seven Percent Solution aren't included, because they weren't written by Doyle and they were done much later than the originals. When it comes to Biblical pseudepigrapha we know they are not as old because in many cases the language is different. All of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. If the oldest copy we have of a supposed Old Testament book is in Greek, we know it was written much later.

In most cases we can scientifically determine how old a manuscript is. We can also look at when the work was first mentioned or quoted by other writers. If the earliest mention of a gospel comes 100 or 200 years after the time of Jesus, it was not written by an apostle or his secretary or close associate. The 4 canonical gospels were all written before the end of the first century, Mark first and John last.

Then there is the subject matter of other would-be gospels, acts, epistles and apocalypses. They are not merely stories about Adam and Eve, Moses, or Jesus. They are very much like The Seven Percent Solution or Young Sherlock Holmes, in that they are origin stories. They are efforts by “fans” to give the untold origins of certain elements in the original stories, explaining or filling in details never provided in the canon of writings. (BTW, “canon” comes from the Greek word for a straight rod or measuring stick. It came to mean a standard or rule.) The two pastiches I mentioned give different explanations of Holmes' obsession with crime and with Professor Moriarty. A lot of the pseudo-scriptures do the same, giving us, for instance, fascinating new details of Mary's or Jesus' childhoods, and answering questions that generations of both believers and unbelievers have asked. They are obviously not equal to the originals but are dependent on the reader having a prior knowledge of them. This makes them read very differently from the originals. When C.S. Lewis, while he was an atheist, first read the gospels in the original Greek, he was struck by their artlessness. As an expert in classical literature, Lewis realized that the gospels were not well-written enough to be myths; they were closer to reporting. In a pseudo-gospel you are very aware of the hand of the writer in shaping what is said and done by the characters. They feel crafted by a storyteller, with none of the odd details one sees in real life. (Compare Mark 14:51-52. Nothing more is made of this person or incident. It doesn't help the story; it's just something that happened.)

The pseudepigrapha usually have a very clear agenda, one that goes way beyond the canonical gospels' purpose to spread the good news about Jesus. Some are pious fictions, written to defend the truth of the gospel by, oddly enough, making stuff up. Other gospels, like that purporting to be by Thomas, simply use Jesus as a spokesperson for the author's own religious ideas. Many promote Gnosticism, which held that the physical universe is evil and that only that which is non-physical is good. This contradicts the Bible which says that God made the universe and pronounced it good. (Genesis 1:31)

Still, who decided which books made it into the Bible and which didn't? It was not a single person or a small group but generations of believers. As Christians spread the gospel, they quoted certain books that they felt had authority when it came to the life and teachings of Jesus. They did this so much that if all the ancient documents of the New Testament were suddenly destroyed, we could still reconstruct them all except for 11 verses, using the quotations of them found in the writings of the early church fathers, the successors to the apostles. That's how revered they were and how authoritative they were considered, as well as how thoroughly they were studied and relied upon.

At first, there was no official list of the books of the New Testament. Ironically the first such list was compiled by Marcion, a wealthy heretic who set up a rival network of churches. He rejected the Old Testament entirely, saying the creator God of the Jews was evil. Only the God and Father of Jesus was good. Consequently his New Testament consisted of an edited version of Luke and ten of Paul's letters. This caused orthodox Christians to argue for the acceptance of the other gospels and the Old Testament. This in turn led to a discussion of which books should be accepted as authoritative when it comes to Christian faith and practice.

Of course there were other good Christian books that were also read and treasured: The Shepherd of Hermes, the First letter of Clement, the letters of Ignatius and more. So why weren't they included in the scriptures? Well, if Marcion's abbreviated, anti-semitic New Testament caused Christians to consider what books ought to be added to the canon, the persecutions under Diocletian forced them to decide what books should be subtracted. The emperor decreed that Christians were to turn over their sacred books to be burned. All the churches had to decide which books to keep (and hide) and which writings were of lesser importance and so could be surrendered to the authorities. Again, by this time there was no official canon of the New Testament but a general agreement emerged that the books to be saved were all 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, 1^st Peter and 1^st John. Some had doubts about the letter to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2^nd and 3^rd John, 2^nd Peter and Revelation, but eventually they too made the grade. So other popular Christian books were sacrificed instead to mollify the emperor.

What criteria were used to decide which books were considered sacred? The first was whether the writer was an apostle or close associate of an apostle, like, for instance, Luke. This is the reason that the 4 gospels and Paul's letters were recognized early in the process. In fact, the current arrangement of the New Testament pretty much follows the order in which the books were accepted into the canon.

A second criterion was whether the book in question was orthodox. “Orthodox” is just Greek for “right teaching.” Christians weighed in on whether the books being discussed were in harmony with the faith received from the apostles. This faith was summarized in creeds which were used in teaching, baptism and other liturgies. So books which rejected the idea that there is only one God, or that rejected Jesus as being both fully human and fully divine, or that rejected the teaching that we are saved by Jesus' death on the cross, were in turn rejected by most Christians.

Another criterion was the antiquity of the book. People back then may not have had the ability to carbon-date books but they were literate and they knew which books went all the way back to the early days of the church. This dovetailed with the final criterion, that of usage. Books that were and that had always been widely quoted by the church, and that were used in catechisms and liturgies, were given more weight.

Contrary to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, and You Tubers ignorant of history, the first church council of Nicea did not create the canon of scripture in 325 AD. The process, as we have said, had already been underway for a couple of hundred years. The council merely affirmed the resulting consensus. And while it was pretty close to what we have today, it wouldn't be completely the same in all parts of the church, scattered all over the known world, for a couple hundred more years. So it was not decided hastily or by one person like the emperor. Councils were called, positions were debated, votes were taken. The voices of Christians and churches from east and west, north and south, were heard.

And the voice of the true Spirit of God was recognized in the books that eventually were collected, copied and distributed as the Bible. It was the holy and loving voice of the Lord who offers forgiveness and healing to those who respond to him. It was the voice of Jesus who challenged popular notions and the status quo rather than rubber-stamped them, as most religions tend to do. It was the voice of the God who audaciously acted to save his creatures at the cost of his own blood. That was the standard, the rule, the canon that the books of the Bible had to meet. You can read the ones that didn't make it online and decide for yourself. To me they mostly read like bad fan fiction. To those who do not merely see but who observe them, the differences between the books that resonated with the vast majority of Christians as getting the God revealed in Jesus Christ right and the ones that didn't get him quite right are, you might say, elementary.

First preached on January 10, 2010. It has been revised and updated. 

Shred the Old, Bless the New

She was always smiling—except when she had forgotten that she had just eaten. She would come up to the nurses' station and ask where her food was. If we gave her something to eat, she would be just as likely to forget and come back with the same complaint: “Where is my food?” I found that it was best to tell her she was early for the next meal, which was just a couple of hours away. Her other inquiry was whether anything was going on right now. We'd tell her about whatever activities the therapists were doing and she'd wheel her chair to Bingo or crafts or singing or cards. Usually she'd just sit and watch but that was OK. She was 103. Her birthday was the day after the first of the year. Maybe that's why, whenever anyone would pass her, whatever day it actually was, she'd wish them a Happy New Year.

And she was right. Our designation of one specific day as the start of a succession of months is arbitrary. The Jewish New Year or Rosh Hashanah takes place in autumn. The Christian liturgical year begins with Advent. Because the Islamic calendar is lunar and about 10 days shorter than the solar year, over time the Muslim or Hijiri New Year migrates throughout the seasons. These calendars are built around major events in their respective faiths. But you don't have to wait until a specific day to start a project or make a change or do something new. You can just get to it. Or, if you really have to wait for someone else to act or something else to happen first, you can at least make preparations.

But excluding creation, no beginning is ever without antecedents. There is always that which came before. It may be good. It may be bad. It may have had both good and bad effects. Whatever it was, you have to deal with it.

If what happened in the past was good, then you should give thanks to God for it and build on it. If some past event or events resulted in both good and bad consequences, you should reflect on that and see what wisdom can be gained from it. Ask yourself: if a similar situation should arise, is there a way to maximize the good that comes from it and minimize the evil?

If something bad has happened in the past, you may have to clean up the aftermath. Or, if you can't do that, you may have to work around its fallout. You might have to make peace with it: acknowledge that it happened and then move on the best you can.

If you had a hand in what was bad—if your actions encouraged or allowed it, if you are responsible either by what you did or didn't do—then you should repent. This doesn't necessarily mean making a big emotional scene. It means, first, regretting and turning away from the evil. It means, to use Paul's metaphor, crucifying and burying the old you. (Romans 6:3-11) That sounds drastic but Paul is not only thinking of the death of our past but also of our resurrection, spiritual and physical, where the best of a person, who they were created to be, is restored by God's Spirit.

Repentance also means telling God that you're sorry for what you did, as well as telling that to anyone who was affected. The good thing about doing this, though it's one of the hardest parts of repentance, is knowing that God truly forgives you. (1 John 1:9)

Repentance also means actively turning towards the good, not only internally but externally as well. It means orienting yourself towards Jesus and becoming more like him. It means opening yourself to his Holy Spirit, that he may purify your soul, illumine your mind and set your heart on fire for him.

But not everything bad in your life is your fault. We are social creatures and what one person or one group does affects others. The problem is that if you had no hand in some awful event, you may also feel powerless to respond to it. You may complain about it but your complaint may seem to be like just blowing off steam. It soon evaporates into nothingness.

After the Great Recession in 2008, there was an event that took place on Wall Street the next year. The organizers invited people to shred the stuff that symbolized the bad events of the past year: pink slips, worthless 401K statements, eviction notices, etc. The idea was to offer a catharsis for the bad things that happened that year. But we can do better.

When I did this in 2010, I put two slips of paper and an envelope in the bulletin. (If you're reading this, you can adapt it on your own.) On one piece of paper write down all the bad things about the previous year they wished to eradicate: events that had negative impacts on you and your loved ones—lost jobs, lost opportunities, broken dreams, illnesses, tragedies, stupid or bad decisions you made, stupid or bad decisions others made that had catastrophic effects on you or those you care for, foolish or harmful words, poor investments, fears realized, fears that never came true but which made your life miserable, arrogance, laziness, lust, greed, rage, envy, gluttony and any other sins you wish to obliterate. Do not put people on this list. We are not symbolically destroying people. Put actions, attitudes, situations and sins. Don't show anyone. Let's do that now.

+

Now on the other piece of paper write, on one side, the things you are thankful for that either happened last year or which survived to this year. Write down decisions you're glad you or others made, actions you're glad that you or others took, wonderful moments, dreams realized, victories achieved, disasters averted, hard work rewarded, and milestones in life reached.

Definitely put people you are grateful for on this list, even people who are no longer living in this world but who are resting in the arms of our loving God and Father. Let's do that now.

+

On the other side of the paper where we listed what we are grateful for, write down our needs and hopes for the new year. Write down both what you need to survive as well as what you hope will happen. They may be things needed for the physical, emotional, financial, or spiritual health of yourself as well as for those you love. They may be prayers for a better perspective on life, or a vision of a better-spent life to follow. When you are done, put the list of thanksgiving and hope in an envelope and put your name on it. Let's take a few minutes to do this.

+

What we did in 2010 was bring the lists and envelopes up to the altar. I had set up a “holy shredder” in which people could insert the stuff they wished to commit to destruction. We had a basket in which to put the envelopes of things people were thankful for and things they hoped for. (You may destroy the first list anyway you can.)

Over these things, let us pray:

Lord God, King of the Universe, Loving heavenly Father, we present to you these things that have hurt and harmed us, your people, this past year. We consign them to destruction. Some of these things are our own fault and we humbly repent, turning from them to you. Some were not our fault and we ask that you heal us and remove their negative effects from our lives. Help us to bury them and move on. We trust that as you brought the offer of eternal life for all out of the death of your beloved Son Jesus Christ, so you will bring out of these sorrows good things for those who love and obey you.

Good and gracious Lord, we present to you these envelopes. Inside are the things and people from this past year for which we are grateful. We acknowledge that they are blessings from you. We also present to you our hopes for this new year. We ask your blessing upon them. According to your wisdom and lovingkindness, water and nourish them that they may grow to maturity and flourish. And if there is anything here for which we are not suited or not yet ready, we know that you will grant something even better for us in the long run. For we know that it is your plan that we may grow into the likeness of your Son and display your love and healing power to others, that your blessings to us may also be blessings to the world, the world you have created and are in the process of making new. We ask all this in the name of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ and through the power of your Holy Spirit, who live and reign with you, Father, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Take the envelopes with your thanks and hopes home with you. Put them somewhere where you don't forget them. You can use them as a help or focus for some of your prayers. You may want to add to them or refine them. And watch to see how God answers those prayers.

I warn you: God thinks outside the box of our perception. He is, as we see in Genesis 1, creative. The answers to your prayers may be “Yes,” “No,” “Not yet,” or “I have something better for you.” He may answer your prayers but not in the way you thought he would. But we have his assurance that he is working all things together for the good of those who love him and that what he can do for us is immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine. (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 3:20) Knowing this, may our attitude this year be that expressed by Dag Hammarskjold: “For all that has been, thanks. For all that will be, yes!”

First preached on January 3, 2010. It has been revised and updated.

The Prince in the Pauper

Mark Twain became famous for writing about a jumping frog and cemented his place in literature with a story of a boy and a runaway slave rafting down the Mississippi River. His most atypical work was an historical novel set in Tudor England. In The Prince and the Pauper, Edward, the son of Henry VIII, encounters Tom Canty, a beggar who is his double. As a lark, the boys change places. Edward soon learns the harsh facts of life as a peasant. He must elude Tom's drunken and abusive father. He learns firsthand the inequalities of English courts of law, where evidence for guilt can be scant and the punishments draconian. When King Henry dies, Edward must regain his throne and prove that, though clothed in the rags of a pauper, he is in fact the prince and future King of England.

The story functions not only as a tale of adventure but also as social satire. Edward learns the truth of how most of his father's subjects live, and Tom, pretending to be prince, shows a rare common sense in rendering justice. And it makes you wish that the kings and leaders of this world knew how life really works when you're not rich and powerful.

The idea of a king living incognito did not originate with Twain. One wonders if the story of Jesus might not have, perhaps subconsciously, inspired or shaped Twain's story. It might be hard to see, however, because we sentimentalize Jesus' life, beginning with his birth. We view it as quaint, whereas it really was the most unglamorous event possible. It is only remarkable if you consider how paradoxically unpromising was the life that began there.

The place where Jesus was born and lived out his earthly life was a crappy little country, at least in the eyes of Rome's rich and powerful elite. Judea's importance was primarily its geographical position. Connecting Asia, Asia Minor, Arabia, and Egypt, it was the crossroads between the East and West for both commerce and conquest.

And the people who lived there, the Jews, were a troublesome lot. They believed in only one God, which practically made them atheists in a polytheistic society. The Jews objected to the cult of the divine emperor, to graven images, and to the taxes, of course. They also had a tendency to revolt in hope of recreating their glory days under a shepherd boy who ruled 1000 years ago. But in the eyes of the world at large, David was a nobody and his kingdom was just a blip in history. These descendents of slaves just didn't appreciate how good they had it under the Pax Romana, the peace made possible by the might of Rome.

The town in which Jesus was born was not that significant, either. Sure, Rachel's tomb was near Bethlehem and David's ancestors had lived there. But the town itself was so small that the massacre of all of its infant boys by Herod is estimated to have only involved a dozen children and so history did not bother to record the event. History is much more interested in kings who murder their own children, which Herod also did.

For that matter, the town from which Mary and Joseph came, and where Jesus grew up, was not much to speak of. In fact, it wasn't mentioned in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Talmud, nor by the Jewish historian Josephus. It was overshadowed by nearby Sepphoris, the “jewel of Galilee,” rebuilt by Herod Antipas, Herod the Great's son. And Nazareth had a bad reputation. When Philip goes to recruit Nathaniel to follow Jesus of Nazareth, his friend says, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Only his encounter with Jesus convinces him otherwise.

Galilee itself was not a region renowned by the Jews of Jesus' day. The Gentile influence was so pervasive that the Jews were evacuated from there during the Maccabean revolt. It was recolonized by the Jews 50 years later but its diversity of peoples and its rural nature meant it was looked down upon by the Jews in the south who lived in Judea and Jerusalem.

Neither Mary and Joseph would have seemed to be anybody special. Mary was probably between 12 and 14, 16 at the oldest. Girls were married off as soon as they reached puberty, due in part to life expectancy. She had to have as many children as she could, as early as possible. A quarter of her offspring might not see their second birthday and half might not live to become adults. Plus women often died in childbirth. Hence the concern in the Bible about your family name living on in your children. It was never a sure thing.

Joseph was probably older than Mary by a decade or more. For one thing, he had finished his apprenticeship as a craftsman. For another, he had moved from his ancestral home in Bethlehem and established himself in Nazareth. That would have taken a few years. Joseph was probably in his middle to late 20s, at the youngest.

Joseph was a tekton, to use the Greek word. Traditionally, this has been translated as carpenter in Europe where many buildings were made from wood. However, given the abundance of rocks in Israel it could also mean stonemason. Whichever he was, Joseph worked with his hands, cutting and carving either furnishings and tools or stones for building. He worked for hire, getting jobs wherever he could. It wasn't a secure or profitable profession. And though he must have owned some land in Bethlehem, which would have been the reason he had to return there for the tax census, it must not have been bringing in much if any income. That may be why Joseph left Bethlehem in the first place, to set up shop in a better market, like a town not far from prosperous, booming Sepphoris. In any case, we know that Joseph wasn't rich when Jesus was born. He and Mary bring two turtledoves or pigeons to the temple when Jesus is presented as an infant. That is the offering of a poor family.

We do know that Joseph was a devout Jew. Matthew says he was a righteous man. That was why he contemplated breaking off the engagement when Mary was found to be pregnant. Betrothal was much more binding than engagement is today. The only way to break it was by divorce. Premarital sex was frowned upon and sex with someone other than your betrothed was considered adultery. Mary could have been stoned to death. That's why Joseph was considering divorcing her quietly. I'll bet that was why Mary was sent out of town to see her relative Elizabeth under the pretense of helping the older woman give birth. That way Mary's pregnancy and birth would not be known in Nazareth. When Joseph decided to marry her anyway (with the urging of an angel in a dream) it made him look bad in the eyes of his community and the religious leaders. And there is evidence in both the gospels and in ancient Jewish sources that Jesus' paternity was always in question.

So these two poor, disreputable people from an unsavory town in a suspect region travel to a nothing place to register on some sad piece of property there. And wouldn't you know it, Mary goes into labor. The tiny town is so packed with people that there is no room for them. Since Joseph has land there, they are probably staying with his relatives and the guestroom is already taken (“inn” is a mistranslation.) So Mary has to deliver in the middle of the family room. Poor homes were split level and the animals were brought in at night to stay on the first level. A ladder led to the family's living space and a feeding trough full of hay rested on the lip of the second level, where the animals could reach it. Jesus' first cradle was that feeding trough or manger. At the time, no one would have found this all that out of place for a poor, presumed bastard child.

It seems that Mary and Joseph settle in Bethlehem for a year or more, because when the magi visit, the family is in a house. Also when Herod decides to wipe out the boys in Bethlehem, he specifies that their age is 2 years and under. Joseph is warned of the coming bloodbath in a dream and once again, the family has to move, becoming refugees.

This time they go to Egypt. There was a large population of Jews there. Perhaps a third of the millions of people who lived in Alexandria were Jewish. Many were well-to-do, schooled in Greek thought. Naturally, the Jews in Judea questioned the religious purity of their cousins in Egypt, much as they did the Galileans.

When Herod the Great dies, Joseph returns with his family to Nazareth. There whatever customs or accent Jesus picked up during his formative years in Egypt would have marked him out as different. These things are rarely an asset socially.

In addition, Jesus is smart, drinking in the scriptures, memorizing them and even formulating his own interpretations. As anyone who's ever been in school knows, it's not always good to be “the smart kid.” Teachers forever hold them up as examples to be emulated, creating resentment among the other kids. And if the smart kid asks questions the teacher can't answer, as Jesus was able to do at age 12 in the temple, it's a rare teacher who doesn't want the kid to just shut up and parrot what he's taught. If Jesus had any friends in Nazareth, there is no evidence of them in scripture. None of his disciples come from his hometown. In fact, on his visit there during his ministry, they have so little faith in him that he is unable to heal very many people. And after his sermon in the synagogue, they almost toss him off the hill on which Nazareth is built.

Joseph completely disappears from the gospels after the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12. He probably died, leaving Jesus, the eldest child, to support a family that includes his mother, 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters. That meant years of hard manual labor and lean times at home. Perhaps this is why Jesus doesn't start his ministry until he's about 30. He had to work until at least some of his brothers were old enough to take over and support his mother and their other siblings.

It might also explain why Jesus seems never to have married even though the Bible rarely gives us personal details about the people it chronicles. Still you would think that a major fact, like Jesus being married, would have been mentioned. We know the names of all the wives of all the patriarchs. We know Peter had a wife and a mother-in-law. Not only is that mentioned in the gospels but Paul uses it in an argument he makes in one of his epistles. You'd think that if Jesus had a wife, Paul would have used that fact, instead of Peter, to cinch his point. So Jesus, whose favorite image of the kingdom of God was a wedding feast, never knew the joy of attending his own.

During his ministry, Jesus traveled with no fixed place to “rest his head.” Though some of those healed, especially the richer ones, must have donated money, Luke tells us that a group of women, among them Mary of Magdala and Joanna, the wife of Herod Antipas' steward, supported his mission out of their resources. So even as he proclaimed the gospel, Jesus did not have much to call his own. The nicest thing he had was his outer tunic, the only thing his executioners thought worth gambling for.

Jesus got a lot of attention but he didn't court it. He told those he healed to praise God but not to give him credit. He avoided talk of him being the Messiah, the holy warrior king that Jews were hoping would throw off the Roman yoke and establish a kingdom of God on earth. When a multitude he had fed wanted to crown him as king, he told them that they must eat his body and drink his blood and he lost a lot of followers after that.

After about 3 years, Jesus is betrayed by one of his inner circle, put through a few rigged trials, beaten, whipped, and nailed to a cross, a punishment reserved for slaves and traitors. As he hangs there, naked by the side of a busy road, every nerve in his body screaming in pain, his enemies come out to mock him. He sees his mother's heart break. Most of his friends aren't even man enough to put in an appearance.

There was nothing glamorous about Jesus' birth, life or death. And we wouldn't have known anything about him if that were the end of his story. But on the third day, everything changed. The mourners became joyful, the cowards became courageous and the skeptics became believers. Jesus rose from the dead and that event made his followers re-evaluate everything they knew about the man.

They discovered their idea about the Messiah was wrong. His mission wasn't to bring peace by spilling the blood of God's enemies but by reconciling them to God through his own blood.

Their idea of God was wrong. He wasn't so removed, so hidden, so wholly other that no one could look at or touch him. Though holy, he loved his people enough to become one of them in order to forgive and heal them and save them from their sins.

Their idea of Jesus was wrong. He wasn't merely the “Son of God” in the sense of being God's chosen king, but in the sense of being one who shares the nature of God. After all, he made the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the mute speak, the withered whole , the sick well and the dead alive again. He liberated those who fought with their demons. He stilled storms, walked on water, and multiplied meals. He forgave sins. And he even overcame his own death. He did things only God could do. And when Pentecost came and the disciples were filled with the Spirit of God as Jesus promised, they boldly proclaimed the good news: Jesus Christ is Lord of all. Forgiveness and transformation and eternal life are his to offer all who turn their lives around, take up their crosses and follow him.

Just as the empty tomb at Easter cast the cross in a new light, so it also changes the way we view a squalid birth in the middle of nowhere. In that blood and pain and squalling, God was present. In the life of a despised peasant, the Prince of Peace spread his reign.

And in your life, and in the life of each person around you, Jesus could be present. In the lives of everyone you meet, including the guy in the dirty hoodie asking you for change in the Winn-Dixie parking lot, Jesus could be present. In suits or rags, wearing shoes, flip-flops, or barefoot, beautifully coiffed or bald, bearded or clean-shaven, good-looking or not, young or old, tall or short, fat or thin, happy or sad, healthy or sick, pink, brown, red or yellow, male of female, in the most unlikely of lives and the most unlovely of places, Jesus could be present.

He could be present. But only you can make sure he is. Only you can open your heart to him. Only you can turn your focus from yourself or whatever else you worship and turn it to him as Lord. Only you can let his Spirit work in you, restoring the image of God in which you were created.

On the first Christmas, Jesus Christ was born. This Christmas let him be born in you. Let his Spirit be embodied in you. Be Christ to others. Seek Christ in others. Serve Christ in all.

First preached on December 24, 2009. It has been revised and updated.

Citizens of the Kingdom

The scriptures referred to are Matthew 5-7.

Remember civics class? A lot of you are probably groaning inwardly. It was usually not the most exciting class. It covered the nuts and bolts of how our government is set up and how it works, as well as the rights and duties of citizens. The subject matter was important, if not very imaginatively presented. I had a much better exploration of some of these issues in a couple of history classes. One teacher had us debate positions as they arose in our study of history. That way we understood some of the issues our founding fathers faced in creating this country. The other teacher did not have us participate as much but would focus on specific issues and dissect them. He spent an entire class on Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, laying out all the arguments, pro and con. You felt the weight that fell upon the new president, who had been kept in the dark about the Manhattan Project by his predecessor, FDR. It's too bad our civics classes didn't deal with case studies like these, that vividly illustrated the principles of government in action and sometimes in conflict with each other.

We have been talking about Jesus as our King. In an absolute monarchy, the king sets foreign and domestic policy, makes laws, acts as judge, and acts as the mediator between his people and God. What we haven't dealt with is our duty as citizens of the kingdom of God. In the Old Testament, there is a charter for the Israelities. It begins in Exodus 20 with the 10 Commandments and continues for the rest of the Torah, interwoven with the narrative of the Israelites traveling to the promised land. Is there anything similar in the New Testament?

Actually, there is. Matthew gives us the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus acts like the new Moses, presenting the law of his kingdom to his followers. And what is interesting is that he doesn't so much lay out precisely how to carry out these rules as he does to what extent we are supposed to go beyond the letter of the law and why. So he continually refers to the Old Testament but encourages his disciples to look deeper into the meaning of what is stated and to discern God's intentions in laying down these laws.

We haven't enough time to cover these 3 chapters of Matthew in depth but let's take a quick overview of what it means in practical terms to obey Jesus as our King.

Whereas the Old Testament law begins with 10 commandments, Jesus begins with 8 beatitudes. (Matthew 5:3-11) A commandment tells you what to do or not do. The beatitudes are a mix of attitudes (the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the pure in heart), actions (peacemakers, being merciful) and circumstances (those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake).

These 8 have two things in common. First, they are virtues associated with the oppressed and with underdogs. So Jesus calling them blessed is a paradox. It is a perfect introduction, however, to God's kingdom in which the values of human societies are turned upside down. The things that our culture sees as vital—the promotion of yourself and your personal interests, benefits and privileges—God sees as less important than the wellbeing of others and holiness. On the other hand, people don't always see these things as virtues. When was the last time anyone was praised for being meek or for mourning? Even being pure in heart is often seen as a way of saying someone is hopelessly naive. The world pays lip service to certain virtues but chooses vices if they get the job done.

Second, these are states of being. And that is a major difference between Christianity and ethical systems that are mostly compilations of laws. Jesus recognizes that what you do comes from what you are. So he is more interested in changing the nature of people. Most folks are virtuous when others are looking and when such behavior gains immediate rewards. The true test of character is, as they say, what do you do when no one is around to praise or scold you. The best way to understand the Sermon on the Mount is as a description of the kind of person who fits the role of citizen in God's kingdom.

So Jesus says that citizens of the kingdom are the salt of the world. (Matthew 5:13) Salt gives flavor. Contrary to popular belief, Christians aren't supposed to be bland. In fact, real Christians aren't. You can't be neutral about people like Mother Teresa or Paul of Tarsus or Francis of Assisi. They are either to your taste or not.

Salt is also used as a preservative. It keeps things like food from going bad. It also increases thirst. We Christians should increase people's thirst for justice and peace while working to keep the world from going bad.

Jesus says citizens of the kingdom of God are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:14) Light helps us see things as they are, which in turn helps us deal with them in the right ways. Light also helps us navigate properly through the world. We all know people who have a lot of problems because they are blind to some aspects of the world or some aspects of themselves. The result is they continually get tripped up by the same things again and again. If it's because they are in the dark about something, they may benefit from the light being shined on those things. If, however, they are still unable to see certain things no matter how often they are pointed out to them, then they may be willfully blind. (John 9:40-41) They don't really want to see the truth about the world or about themselves.

Jesus does specifically mention a number of commandments but always to get to the principles that underlie them. So Jesus traces the seed of murder to anger and contempt. (Matthew 5:21-22) He points out that adultery begins when you look at a person you're not married to as the legitimate object of your lustful attention. (Matthew 5:27-30) Even if you never follow through, you will never be able to look at that person the same way. It changes you. The seed is planted. So it is better to sacrifice anything in your life that triggers, entices, or enables you to sin, even if it feels like a part of you, rather than let it cause your destruction, and the destruction of your relationships and family.

Adultery is still one of the main causes of divorce. In Jesus' day, only men could initiate divorce and they could do it for the most trivial of reasons, like burning dinner, which, let's face it, sounds like an excuse. This left the wife and children in danger of poverty, which is true even today. The men hearing Jesus preach were probably shocked by his condemnation of what was a common practice. (Matthew 5:31-32)

A citizen of the kingdom doesn't need to take oaths. He is always as good as his word. (Matthew 5:33-37) A citizen of God's kingdom does not take revenge for wrongs done to him but turns the other cheek and goes the second mile. Thus he repays evil with good. (Matthew 5:38-42) A citizen of the kingdom doesn't just show love to those who love him but acts with love even towards his enemies. (Matthew 5:43-48)

A citizen of the kingdom of God is generous but doesn't advertise her charitable giving. (Matthew 6:1-4) She doesn't draw attention to the fact that she is fasting, either. (Matthew 6:16-18) Similarly she doesn't make her prayers into public performances. (Matthew 6:5-8) Her prayers are straightforward: praising God, asking that he carry out his will in this world, asking for her basic needs, asking for forgiveness in the same measure that she forgives others, and asking for protection against temptation and evil. (Matthew 6:9-15)

A citizen of God's kingdom doesn't believe that he who dies with the most toys wins. He treasures heavenly things that cannot be possessed or hoarded but only stored in his heart. (Matthew 6:19-21) He stays clear-eyed about his priorities and never puts money ahead of God. (Matthew 6:22-24)

A citizen of the kingdom of God doesn't worry about the temporary things of this life. She trusts God to provide for her needs. Instead she concentrates on the day at hand, not scary shadows of possible futures that will not necessarily become realities. (Matthew 6:25-34)

A citizen of God's kingdom doesn't pass final judgment on others, knowing that he would fail to meet his own standards. (Matthew 7:1-2) He is conscious of his own faults and wouldn't dream of trying to correct someone else's minor flaws without taking care of his own first. (Matthew 7:3-6)

A citizen of the kingdom is bold, knowing that God will give her what she needs and asks for, make available what she seeks, and open any doors on which she knocks. Because God is a good and loving father. (Matthew 7:7-11)

A citizen of the kingdom knows that the heart of God's law is treating others with the same respect and fairness with which we expect to be treated. (Matthew 7:12)

A citizen knows that entering the kingdom is tough and the requirements are demanding. You don't just stumble into it. It takes total commitment. (Matthew 7:13-14)

A citizen of the kingdom of God realizes that there are frauds passing themselves off as God's spokesmen. He looks beyond their words to see whether what they are doing is actually good or evil. (Matthew 7:15-20) He knows that just saying that you're a Christian won't cut it with Jesus if your behavior doesn't match your beliefs. (Matthew 7:21-23) He knows that you're only secure if you build your life on the rock-solid foundation of Jesus' actual teachings and commandments. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Jesus says other things about the kingdom of God elsewhere but the Sermon on the Mount is the core. And I just want to note two things. First, these are not ways of being a citizen of God's kingdom some day in some perfect future but right now in the imperfect present. Just as Jesus brought in the seeds of the kingdom while he was living in enemy-occupied territory, so we are to plant and nurture the seeds of the kingdom while living in a world that has rebelled against its rightful King. And just as Jesus did not come as a warrior, neither do we. We are to be his ambassadors. (2 Corinthians 5:20) We are bringing the good news of God's good will towards those who are open to his reign. And just as an embassy is not considered a part of the country where it is situated, but instead as a part of its homeland, so the kingdom of God exists wherever we do the work of the kingdom. And that's how we spread Jesus' royal reign.

Second, this is a tall order and we cannot do it on our own. Fortunately, we are not on our own. Jesus our King has sent a counselor, advocate and helper, his Spirit, to dwell in us, to give us the words we need and the power to obey his words and to do his works. (John 14:16-17; Luke 21:15; 1 Corinthians 12:4-7) And when we fail him, which we will at times, he intercedes for us and cleanses us and re-forms us, making us ever more Christ-like. (Psalm 51:10-12; Romans 8:26-27; 2 Corinthians 3:18)

In Luke 17:21, Jesus says, “The kingdom is within you.” Some translations render it, “The kingdom is in the midst of you.” I like how Biblical scholar N.T. Wright translates it: “The kingdom is within your grasp.” And so it is. Jesus has given us his words, his example and his Spirit. He's laid the groundwork. He's given us the tools we need. Let's get started. We don't have all the time in the world. Haven't you heard? The King is coming!

First preached on December 20, 2009. It has been revised and updated.

In What Sense Is Jesus Our King?

The scriptures of the day are Zephaniah 3:14-20; Isaiah 12:2-6; Philippians 4:4-7 and Luke 3:7-18.

I have lived under 13 presidents but I have only seen one in the flesh. Gerald Ford spoke at my college. I know what the others look like, thanks to photos and videos. In the past it was only possible, however, for the average US citizen to see the president's actual face from the term of James K. Polk onwards. Though John Quincy Adams was the earliest ex-president to be photographed, and a daguerreotype of William Henry Harrison was made while he was in office, Polk's was the first presidential photograph to survive. It was taken in 1849. Even so, newspapers didn't start printing photos until 1880. So up until then, most people only knew what their national leader looked like through drawings, paintings, sculptures, and for much of history, through their images on coins.

The reason I bring this up is to answer one objection that some might raise to Jesus being our king: he is not physically present. But not since the era of city states have people been ruled by leaders they all could actually lay their eyes on. Most of us will live and die without ever seeing at least 90% of the presidents, senators, governors and other people who make the rules we obey. And that includes the CEOs of any large corporation we might work for. Aside from brief clips in the news, we primarily know about those whose decisions have a huge impact on us by reading about them and reading their messages to us. And few of us think twice about never meeting them face-to-face.

So the fact that we will probably never, in this life, see Jesus walking down our street is something he shares with all national leaders. But since he has no official capital or legal jurisdiction, in what sense is he our king?

This gets tricky because we all live in nations to which we pledge allegiance. We are bound to obey the various civic officials and laws of this country. So is there room for Jesus as king? And what do we do when his laws clash with those of our earthly country?

This is a problem that arose very early in the history of the church. It is likely that Jesus called himself “the Son of Man” precisely because a more obviously messianic title would have gotten him arrested before his ministry got very far along. And, sure enough, his opponents tried to get him in trouble with the occupying powers. “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” they asked him. The tax in question was the tribute tax, which was essentially acknowledging the inferiority of Judea to the pagan empire. There had been major riots over this tax in the recent past. Jesus knew what they were doing. If he said “No,” he could be denounced to Pilate, the Roman governor. If he said “Yes,” he would lose much popular support, not to mention that of the Zealots, whose slogan was “No king but God.”

Jesus asked to see a coin. He is given one with Tiberius Caesar's image on it. What's interesting is that no one on the temple grounds should have one on him. Jews minted their own copper coins that omitted the image of the deified emperor. To pay Roman taxes they had to use the gold and silver coins that did have Caesar's face on them. However, those coins were not used in the temple to make offerings. That's why moneychangers set up shop there to change the blasphemous Roman coins into the approved Jewish ones. These moneychangers set such unfair exchange rates that Jesus called them thieves. So if those quizzing Jesus were serious in their religious observance, they shouldn't have been able to produce the silver denarius they passed to him.

Jesus asks whose image and inscription, which said, “son of the divine Augustus,” is on the coin. When he is told that they are Caesar's, he replies, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Some think Jesus was avoiding answering the question. But that's to assume that Jesus' admittedly clever response is also empty. But he is saying, among other things, that human government does have authority over certain things.

Despite what the Zealots thought, human government is necessary for keeping order and building and maintaining the common good. Things like the excellent Roman road system and the armies that enforced the Pax Romana, the long period of peace within the empire, were paid for by taxes. It's for this reason that Paul, who was able to travel safely throughout the empire and spread the gospel, wrote in Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. There is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist have been appointed by God.” God did intend for humans to rule the earth as it says in Genesis 1:28. That we haven't done it well is one reason why he sent his son. Christian anarchy, however, is an oxymoron.

But what if God's commandments contradict the laws of a human government? In Acts 5, we learn that the apostles were thrown into prison for proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord. They had in fact been previously warned not to preach in Jesus' name. So when they were hauled up before the Sanhedrin, the high priest accurately pointed out that they had violated the council's clear orders. To which Peter and the other apostles reply, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

This sounds like a contradiction of what Paul writes but there is a different issue at stake. Paul was talking about the general principle that Christians should be law-abiding in matters of the common good. In the previous chapter of Romans, he said, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people.” (Romans 12:18) However, Peter and the apostles were given a specific order that contradicts Jesus' command to preach the gospel to all. Jesus' law supersedes that of human authorities.

There is an analogous situation in our country. Most of the time the laws we obey are local ones—traffic laws, sales tax, signage, etc. But local laws cannot void state laws. Monroe County cannot ignore state laws on health and hygiene in local restaurants. Nor can state laws preempt Federal laws. Florida cannot revive slavery, for instance. If it tried to, the US Supreme Court would find that law unconstitutional.

This is roughly how Jesus functions as our king while we live on earth and are citizens of its nations. There is no Biblical body of traffic laws. Scripture does not tell us what is the right speed limit nor whether it is divinely ordained that we drive on the right or the left. We obey such earthly laws out of Christian love for others. Nobody wants our streets to look like something out of the film Road Warrior. For most of the mundane things that need to be ordered, human laws will do. But God's laws, like the Ten Commandments, and especially the two greatest laws, to love God and love others, take priority in the event of a conflict of real consequence. Such as when Christians decided not to obey the Fugitive Slave Act which required even people in the slave-free northern states to return escaped slaves to their masters in the south. Or when Christians in Nazi-occupied Europe, like Corrie Ten Boom, decided to hide Jews from the authorities. They were obeying Jesus' command to love others as they would themselves

Let's look at what Jesus said when given the coin. We cannot claim that the very principle of taxation is wrong. You need money to organize and run a civilization. But a Christian could discern that a particular tax was immoral if it fell unequally and unfairly on the poor, or if it was used to keep people from voting, as the poll taxes did, or if the tax was enacted to fund an evil action, such as putting people in concentration camps because of their ethnicity, or national origin, or religious beliefs. The Biblical principle of justice would supersede such an evil law. And the Christian who did this would otherwise submit to the justice system. The early Christians did not evade going to prison for acting on their faith. It was part of their witness.

A word of caution on this matter. The church has had a distinctly mixed record when it comes to upholding and defying laws. Christians were the major force in ending slavery in the US and in Britain. But other Christians opposed this, quoting scriptures to buttress what were essentially racist and self-serving arguments. During the Middle Ages, bishops and popes protected Jews from persecution—by other Christians. Throughout history Christians have protected and championed the oppressed—while other Christians have passed laws that oppressed and persecuted the same people. Christians have both opposed wars and started them.

So when trying to discern the Christian position on an essential issue, we need to realize a couple of things. First, we must acknowledge that the laws and situations relating to theocratic ancient Israel may not apply to living in a modern secular country. God's covenant with us through Jesus is not identical to his covenant with the Israelites through Moses. America is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible and cannot be considered the new promised land of God's people. We are like foreigners and exiles in this world, as it says in 1 Peter 2:11.

Secondly, a Christian should honestly ask himself if he is seeking the mind of God and listening to his voice in scripture, or if he is merely seeking God's approval for something he already has in mind and using scripture to justify his own prejudices and positions. Are you being selective in which passages you refer to and ignoring the ones that go against your desires? One clue: if you think God always agrees with you, you are deluding yourself. The only person 100% in sync with God is Jesus. And you are not him.

But what if, after prayer and Bible study and honest self-appraisal, you decide a human law seriously contradicts God's law? How should a Christian honor the law of his divine king when it comes into conflict with a law of human devising? How should we respond?

How we function as citizens of the kingdom of God while living in the kingdoms of this world will be the topic of the last sermon on the last Sunday in Advent.

First preached on December 13, 2009. It has been revised and updated.

Should Jesus be King?

The scriptures of the day are Malachi 3:1-4; Luke 1:68-79; Philippians 1:3-11 and Luke 3:1-6.

In the first sermon in this series, I asked at the end whether we need a king. Last week I finished by asking if the absolute power of kings corrupted them, should we use that term of Jesus? The two questions are related and that's what we will be exploring.

Looking at the roles of a king and our need for a king, that is, a single authority to tell us what to do as Christians, is analogous to considering what a car does and why you need a car. But before you buy one, you still have to determine what kind of car you need. The size, features and price must be considered. Jesus encourages us to think about practical things before following him and to “count the cost.” (Luke 14:28-33)

Sometimes when determining what you need, it's best to start by deciding what you don't need. If you are looking at getting a vehicle, you may want 4 wheel drive if you are a lumberjack, or if you work somewhere that has a lot of ice and snow, like Minnesota, but you really don't need that if you are an urban commuter in Brownsville, Texas or the Florida Keys.

So what kind of king don't we need? We don't need a micro-manager. Human rule-makers rarely take into account all the variables that those who must carry out the rules have to deal with. As a nurse, I found that administering literally hundreds of pills to 2 or 3 dozen patients with varying abilities to swallow, and different levels of compliance, and doing it both accurately and in a limited amount of time, means that time management is a much bigger consideration than nursing home administrators realize. It is not helpful when they add tasks or when they specify that certain things be done in ways that assume we operate in an ideal situation. Some patients must have each pill crushed and poured down a feeding tube; some need to have their pills crushed and put in applesauce or ice cream and then they have to be spoon-fed; some patients may have to be hunted down because they might be in their room or in the lounge or in physical therapy. Adding more tasks can mean that the last patient will get their 8 AM meds at noon! Bosses always want quantity, quality and quickness. They don't realize that you can't have all three at the same time.

With Jesus as king, you wouldn't expect that kind of micro-managing to be a problem. Jesus knows what it's like to be human, something which ironically many human leaders seem to forget. Jesus knows what it is to obey God while having to factor in all the demands and limitations of living in time and space, as well as deal with certain political and social situations. So in healing people he used different methods in different situations. For instance in dealing with a deaf and mute man, Jesus explained how he was going to heal him by miming. (Mark 7:32-35) Sometimes he laid hands on people and other times he simply gave the word and healed them at a distance. (Matthew 8:1-13) Jesus did not rigidly stick to one way of healing people. He suited his method to the situation and the person.

And so Jesus' commands are refreshingly lacking in details. This horrifies human rule-makers and so they are always trying to fill in what they see as appalling deficits in our Lord's pronouncements. It is common for certain religious groups to lay down specific rules about how people should dress (or not dress), vote (or not vote), and exactly how certain tasks or rituals must be performed. They do this despite the fact that it rarely works. Because of their use in gambling and fortune-telling, the Christian college I went to forbid us to have traditional playing cards. This did not stop students from violating the spirit of the rule while observing the letter of it by using Rook decks instead.

Another problem is that, however well-intentioned, if the rules are too restrictive, people will come up with work-arounds. Orthodox Jews who interpret the Sabbath rules against work to include things like turning on the light switch often employ a Gentile to do those things for them. The work is nevertheless done and it is paid for by those for whom it is intended to be a spiritual discipline.

In addition, no rule, no matter how specific, can cover all contingencies and extraordinary or unexpected situations. They need to leave room for some discretion on the part of those carrying them out. Jesus had many run-ins with the Pharisees on such matters. Yes, the Ten Commandments forbid working on the Sabbath. But what if your work is healing the sick? (Mark 3:1-5) A righteous man should not let a promiscuous woman kiss him. But what if she were repentant and showing it by washing your feet with her tears and kissing them? (Luke 7:36-50) A man should behave himself in a place of worship. But what if those running the place were letting unscrupulous businesses exploit worshippers by overcharging them? (Matthew 21:12-13) The Pharisees, like all human rule-makers, had gotten so caught up in trying to close all the loopholes that they had forgotten the original intent of God's laws. Jesus said that loving God with all your being and loving your neighbor as you do yourself were the bases for all the other laws. (Matthew 22:36-40) If we come up with rules that harm those two relationships then there is something wrong with those rules or how we are carrying them out.

We also don't need a king who is partial or biased in his judgment. The seeds of destruction are sown whenever some people are either exempt from the rules or unduly favored. At one of the radio stations where I worked, a “super” salesman was hired. Instead of letting him prove himself by starting from scratch, he was immediately given several prime accounts—taken from other successful salesmen. Or rather, saleswomen who were outperforming most of the men. In the end they lost the women due to the sales and general managers' blatant unfairness. And the star salesman proved not to be so super. Had they not shown favoritism they wouldn't have lost so many valuable salespeople nor such a great amount of money. We see the same favoritism shown to popular entertainers and politicians. Folks cut them a lot more slack than they do others.

Jesus is consistent in his judgment. He said that on the last day, many would call him Lord but the only ones he would recognize were those who did his Father's will. In other words, simply identifying yourself as a Christian doesn't count, just like merely protesting your innocence doesn't determine the outcome of a trial. Jesus will look at the evidence. If it doesn't back up your claim that you actually follow him, Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers,” (Matthew 7:21-23)

On the other hand, we don't need a king who is rigid when it comes to those who break the rules, especially those who truly are willing to turn their lives around. Peter rebuked Jesus for saying that he would be executed by the authorities. (Mark 8:31-33) He later denied Jesus three times while our Lord was being tried. (Luke 22:54-62) Jesus forgave him. (John 21:15-19) Thomas could not believe his fellow disciples when they told him they had met the resurrected Christ. Jesus not only forgave him but invited him to feel his wounds. (John 20:24-29) James and John lobbied to be his right hand men, sowing dissention among the Twelve. Jesus forgave them. (Mark 10:35-45) Saul of Tarsus oversaw the stoning of the first deacon, Stephen. Jesus forgave him. (Acts 7:58-8:3; 9:1-6)

If they showed that they could and would change the direction of their lives, the real definition of repentance, Jesus forgave them. But Jesus went beyond that. He even asked forgiveness for his executioners, based on their ignorance of what they were doing. (Luke 23:33-34) Which makes you wonder what Jesus might have said to Judas had he come to the cross rather than deciding to be his own judge, jury and executioner by hanging himself. (Matthew 23:3-5)

We need a king who is fair, who gives us clear rules but lets us work out how to carry them out in specific situations and who forgives those who are willing to turn their lives around and who helps them do so. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) We need someone just and merciful like Jesus to be our king, the person who ultimately calls the shots in our lives.

But our second question still is unanswered. Should anyone be trusted with absolute power? Isn't the concept of a king an inherently bad and corrupted one?

If Jesus were merely human, then, like all other humans, he could not be trusted with such power. But while fully human, he is also fully divine. And you can't tempt or bribe God. What can you offer him that he did not make and could not take back if he wished? Of course, we do try to bribe God. But we are like ants waving crumbs before someone who has prepared a banquet. “Grant this prayer and I swear I will go to church every Sunday from now on.” “Don't let me get in trouble for this and I will be good from now on.” The only thing Jesus wants from us is our love and loyalty and he is wise enough to know when they are being freely and sincerely given and when they are simply attempts to manipulate him.

Corrupt people want power so they can use it for their own benefit. But Jesus' motive is to put back together the world his Father created and which we have shattered through our arrogance, violence, selfishness and foolishness. The world was designed so that everything that is a part of it, including us, meshes and works in harmony with every other part. It is held together by trust and love. Ever wonder why the world seems to fit together almost, but not quite, perfectly? We have put grit in the gears. We have pulled out some parts and tried to use them for our own purposes. We have, each of us, tried to put ourselves at the center of the universe, thereby distorting its design and throwing it out of balance. What sometimes appears to be God moving against us is really him putting things right and putting us back in our proper places. And shouldn't the person leading us be the one person who knows exactly how everything should go together, something no mere human can do?

We need a king and he needs to be Jesus. But this leads us to another question. Jesus has yet to return and in the meantime we live in a world where we already have nations and governments. So in what sense can Jesus be our King, here and now?

That's our topic next week.

First preached on December 6, 2009. It has been revised and updated.

Who Needs a King?

The scriptures referred to are Daniel 7:9-10,13-14; Psalm 93; Revelation 1:4b-8 and John 18:33-37.

Last week we traced the development of the concept and office of king. However, the way ancient Israel got a king was a bit different. As a federation of tribes who could trace their descent from a common ancestor, the Israelites had no king. The tribes were allotted territories in the promised land and each handled its own business through tribal structures. But they were periodically attacked by the Philistines, a group of seafaring folks who came from Cyprus and Crete. They settled on the coastlands and continually pushed in towards the hill country which the Israelites controlled. They were pushed back by a series of charismatic leaders who would temporarily unite the tribes of Israel militarily. We call these inspired leaders “judges,” from the Hebrew word for those who dispense justice. But since the judges would only arise when things went bad for the Israelites, there was a feeling that the disunity that otherwise prevailed led to a lack of morale and morals. As it says in the book of Judges, “In those days Israel had no king. Each man did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

So the people went to Samuel, the current judge. He was getting old and his sons were corrupt and the people were not looking forward to them succeeding him. They asked Samuel to “Give us a king to lead us like all the other nations have.” This would give them a strong and permanent military leader with a standing army. But Samuel warned them that this would be expensive. There would be taxes to support him and his family and his administrators, as well as the army. Their young men would be pressed into military service and their young women would be utilized as cooks and staff for the royal household. The king would get the best land, a tenth of their crops, and as many wives as he wished. Nevertheless, the people wanted a king. And though this meant a rejection of God as their king, the Lord told Samuel to anoint a human one. (1 Samuel 8)

As I said last week, the Bible is quite aware of the problems of kingship. You give one human being that much power and he will abuse it. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our own form of government was a reaction against the abuses our founding fathers saw in the British monarchy. And yet there was a popular movement to make George Washington king! In general, it seems that people are only opposed to a strong leader when he is one of their political enemies. They want their own leader to be more powerful than that of the opposition.

So, in the light of the well-documented abuses of kings, should we even use the term “king” in regards to Jesus?

A lot of people think that not only the title of “king” but the whole concept of Jesus ruling over us is an outmoded way of thinking. They would rather see Jesus as a guide or an adviser. They don't like the idea of him being able to veto any of our ideas or desires. In his film Dogma Kevin Smith has a bishop introduce a replacement for the traditional representation of crucified Christ, which he calls a “bummer.” Instead, he unveils the “Buddy Christ.” a smiling Jesus, winking and giving a thumbs up to all. This is a satirical jab by Smith, a Catholic, at how America already views Jesus, not as Lord but as supportive “homie.” The “Buddy Christ” would never presume to tell you what to do or not to do. He's got your back, bro, no matter what you do.

And that's the problem. Studies have shown that self-identified Christians do not have lifestyles that are appreciably different from non-religious citizens of the US. Their divorce rate is the same. A Gallup poll found that white Evangelicals are disproportionately racist in their views of blacks. A Pew Research Center survey shows that a majority of white Evangelical and nonevangelical Protestants and Catholics see the influx of migrants as a crisis rather than a major problem. 46% of Christians overall think that poverty is due to a lack of effort rather than difficult circumstances. A host of outspoken Christian politicians have been exposed as adulterers. There have been scandals involving Christian clergy. In short, like the book of Judges says, by not seeing Jesus as king, everyone is doing whatever they consider to be right for them.

Obviously these are people who only hear the “Jesus loves you” part of the gospel and not the “repent” part. (Mark 1:14-15) They cheer when Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery that he doesn't condemn her but tune out before he tells her to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11) They don't let Jesus' commands to be godly, to be faithful and to love one's enemy veto what they want to do. (Matthew 5:44, 48; Luke 16:10) Rather they let their own inclinations and desires veto Jesus' clear commands.

Research by the Barna polling organization shows that the average American agrees with the Hindu leader Gandhi when he said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

When his disciples reported that they discouraged a man from casting out demons in Jesus' name because he wasn't part of their group, Jesus rebuked them. “He who is not against you is for you,” he said. (Mark 9:38-40) Yet churches are quick to condemn Christians who disagree with them on non-essential issues.

Jesus condemned hypocrisy. But as we have seen, a lot of high profile Christians have been doing the very things they condemn. And supporting others who violate Christian principles rather than properly correcting them. (Galatians 6:1)

Despite living under the thumb of an oppressive occupying pagan power, Jesus refused to get drawn into discussions of certain political issues. He said there were things that bear Caesar's image and belonged to Caesar and things that bear God's image—ie, people—and which belong to God. (Luke 20:21-25) He said his kingdom did not come from this world. (John 18:36) He refused worldly power when it was offered to him as a temptation. (Matthew 4:8-10) Yet the church has frequently flirted with taking on political power and, like a moth attracted to a flame, has suffered the same tragic results.

Jesus was executed unjustly. Yet the majority of white and Hispanic Protestants support the death penalty. Catholics and black Protestants are evenly split while younger Christians are less supportive of the death penalty. And this is despite evidence that some innocent people do get condemned and sent to death row. This is an area where an uncorrected mistake is always a fatal one. At least in this area, the Roman Catholic church's official position is consistent, saying that being pro-life means opposing executions as well as abortions.

These contradictions between the way our Lord spoke and the way we Christians act is apparent to the world, if not always to us. It has gotten to the point where some people, wishing to disassociate from a category that includes both Robert Jeffress and Joel Olsteen, don't call themselves Christians but Christ-followers. That doesn't seem to be catching on but I think those who coined the term are onto something. The label “Christian” has become diluted. It can mean as little as “I like some of the things Jesus stands for the way I like some of the songs in Les Miz.” Ironically, it no longer means “I take everything Jesus said as gospel.” It doesn't even mean “I seriously consider what Jesus says on issues first so I might even go against my personal opinions and desires if they are in conflict with Jesus' explicit commands.” Today the word “Christian” basically means, not “Jesus is my Lord,” but “Jesus is my mascot.” To some, Jesus is a symbol, not a savior.

When I identify myself as a nurse, I see a more favorable reaction than when I identify myself as clergy. People know what a nurse stands for—healing and caring. People aren't always sure what a priest stands for. And it's the same when you identify yourself as a Christian. Often they think it's the same as saying you belong to a specific political party. Though neither party is 100% in sync with God's point of view.

This is not to say that following Jesus may not lead you to take positions on issues that people see as political. The Bible literally mentions our duty to help the poor, the oppressed, the immigrant, the sick, the disabled and the imprisoned over 800 times. It speaks of God as being interested in promoting justice, peace, and mercy. It condemns greed, deceit, arrogance, rage, envy, violence, being divisive and harmful speech. If those were the issues we voted on, how would we rate as a Christian nation?

Part of the problem is that we have so emphasized being saved by grace through faith alone that we have forgotten that being saved isn't just declaring you're on God's team rather than the devil's. It's about being transformed from a person with a fractured relationship with God and everything and everyone he has created to a person with a restored and healing relationship with God and everything and everyone he created. It's not so much about being on a different side; it's about being a different person, a person who is becoming more Christlike. Jesus is the incarnation of the same God who, in the words of Psalm 146, “upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free. The Lord gives sight to the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down. The Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow...” (Psalm 146:7-9) If those are the priorities of our God and King, then they are our priorities as well.

We need a king because we need someone whom we must obey in such matters, not someone whose opinion we'll take under advisement. You can't say to a king, “Well, I'll obey you when what you say is in agreement with my opinion on the matter.” That's not obedience but disloyalty. You can't say to God, “I'll do the spiritual stuff: praying, worshipping, etc—the stuff that makes me feel good—but not the harder 'love your neighbor' stuff or the really challenging 'love your enemy' stuff.” That's not following Jesus. It's following your own desires. You can't do that with someone who is your Lord and King. What you can do is figure out how best to obey him in each circumstance.

But we still have questions to answer about kingship. Like this one: Given what we've said about the problems of an absolute monarch, who demands obedience, why should we choose Jesus as our king? Think and pray about that this week and we'll look at that next Sunday.

First preached on November 29, 2009. It has been revised and updated.